Background Uterine rupture has a significant public health importance, contributing to 13% of maternal mortality and 74%-92% of perinatal mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa, and 36% of maternal mortality in Ethiopia. The prevalence and predictors of uterine rupture were highly variable and inconclusive across studies in the country. Therefore, this systematic review and metaanalysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence and predictor of uterine rupture in Ethiopia. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 checklist. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online databases were searched. The Newcastle- Ottawa quality assessment tool was used for critical appraisal. I2 statistic and Egger’s tests were used to assess the heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively. The random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence and odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval. Results Sixteen studies were included, with a total of 91,784 women in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of uterine rupture was 2% (95% CI: 1.99, 3.01). The highest prevalence was observed in the Amhara regional state (5%) and the lowest was in Tigray region (1%). Previous cesarean delivery (OR = 9.95, 95% CI: 3.09, 32.0), lack of antenatal care visit (OR = 8.40, 95% CI: 4.5, 15.7), rural residence (OR = 4.75, 95% CI: 1.17, 19.3), grand multiparity (OR = 4.49, 95% CI: 2.83, 7.11) and obstructed labor (OR = 6.75, 95%CI: 1.92, 23.8) were predictors of uterine rupture. Conclusion Uterine rupture is still high in Ethiopia. Therefore, proper auditing on the appropriateness of cesarean section and proper labor monitoring, improving antenatal care visit, and birth preparedness and complication readiness plan are needed. Moreover, early referral and family planning utilization are the recommended interventions to reduce the burden of uterine rupture among Ethiopia women.
This systematic review and meta-analysis have designed to estimate the pooled prevalence of uterine rupture and predictors among Ethiopian women. We registered the protocol with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), University of York Center for Reviews and Dissemination (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/), with a registration number CRD42019119620. The findings of the review were reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2009 statement checklist [26] (S1 Table). All published articles were searched in major international databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online databases. Onwards, a search of the reference lists of the identified studies was done to retrieve additional articles. For this review, the PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparison and Outcomes) search strategy was used. Population: women who had uterine rupture in Ethiopia. Exposure: predictors of uterine rupture e.g. place of residence either rural or urban, the duration of labor, obstructed labor (presence or absence of obstructed labor) and having ANC visit or not, previous cesarean delivery or vaginal delivery. Comparison: the reported reference group for each predictor in each respective variable. Outcome: uterine rupture among Ethiopian women was the outcome of interest. The primary outcome was the prevalence of uterine rupture among Ethiopian women. Uterine rupture is a partial or complete tear of the uterine wall during pregnancy or delivery [5]. The secondary outcomes were: the predictors of uterine rupture such as previous cesarean delivery, place of residence, ANC visit, gravidity, and obstructed labor. For each selected PECO component, the electronic databases were searched using keywords and the medical subject heading [MeSH] terms. The quest for keywords includes prevalence, uterine rupture and predictors or determinants, as well as Ethiopia. The search terms were combined by the Boolean operators “OR” and “AND (S2 Table). This review included studies that reported either the prevalence of uterine rupture or the predictors of uterine rupture in Ethiopia. All English language published studies released up to the end of our search period (30/3/2019) were retrieved to this systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Case reports of populations, surveillance data (demographic health survey), abstracts of conferences, and articles without full access were excluded. First, through review of title, abstract and full paper was done by two reviewers (MD and HA). Any disagreement with the two reviewers was settled by consensus. Then, a full-text analysis of potentially qualifying studies including identification of duplicated records. Only the full-text article was retained in case of duplication. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of included studies based on the three components [27]. The principal component of the tool graded from five stares and emphasized on the methodological quality of each primary study. The other component of the tool graded from two stars and concerns about the comparability of each study and the last component of the tool graded from three stars and used to assess the outcomes and statistical analysis of each original study. The NOS has three categorical criteria with a maximum score of 9 points. The quality of each study was rated using the following scoring algorithms: ≥7 points were considered as “good”, 2 to 6 points were considered as “fair”, and ≤ 1 point was considered as “poor” quality study. Accordingly, in order to improve the validity of this systematic review result, we only included primary studies with fair to good quality. Then, the two reviewers (MD and HA) independently assessed or extracted the articles for overall study quality and or inclusion in the review using a standardized data extraction format. The data extraction format included primary author, publication year, and region of the study, sample size, and prevalence, and the selected predictors of uterine rupture. The publication bias was assessed using the Egger’s [28] and Begg’s [29] tests with a p-value of less than 0.05. I2 statistic was employed to assess heterogeneity among studies and a p-value less than 0.05 was used to declare heterogeneity. As a result of the presence of heterogeneity, the random-effects model was used as a method of analysis to estimate the DerSimonian and Laird’s pooled effect [30]. In the current meta-analysis, arcsine-transformed proportions were used. The pooled proportion was estimated using the back-transform of the weighted mean of the transformed proportions, using arcsine variance weights for the fixed-effects model and DerSimonian-Laird weights for the random-effects model [31]. Data were extracted in Microsoft Excel and exported to Stata version 11 for analysis. Subgroup analysis was conducted by region and type of study design. Besides, a meta-regression model was done based on sample size and year of publication to identify the sources of random variations among included studies. The effect of selected determinant variables was analyzed using separate categories of meta-analysis [32]. The findings of the meta-analysis were presented using forest plot and Odds Ratio (OR) with its 95% CI. Additionally, we performed a sensitivity analysis to assess whether the pooled prevalence estimates were influenced by individual studies.