Table 3.

Main findings of studies included in the systematic review

Study	Main Findings	Conclusions
Eijsink et al., 2008 [32]	Median IPI: Elective CS breech (22mths), Emergency CS (18 mths), Vaginal breech (16 mths), Reference [home birth] (18 mths)	In women with a breech delivery, a longer IPI among the elective CS group was reported, however there were only 35 women in this group
Zdeb et al., 1984 [33]	Median IPI in mths: 21.8	No significant difference in the timing of subsequent pregnancies among the two groups
#Tower et al., 2000 [17]	Median BI (IQR) in mths: CS failure to progress (32, 23–45); CS fetal distress (34, 25–46); SVD (32, 23–44)	No evidence that women delivering by Caesarean section have significantly longer waiting times to next pregnancy or birth
	Median IPI (IQR) in mths: CS failure to progress (28, 22–40); CS fetal distress (31, 24–44); SVD (29, 22–39)
Hemminki, 1987 [37]	BI: Subsequent pregnancy within 5 years 1973 cohort- RR (0.91, 95% CI 0.89, 0.93); 1976 cohort RR (0.91, 95% CI 0.89, 1.12)	Proportion of women with a previous Caesarean section less likely to have a subsequent delivery, although no significant difference found
LaSala, 1987 [35]	BI: CS delivery (5.5%) >2 years without conceiving; vaginal delivery (1.4%) >2 years without conceiving	Women with a previous Caesarean were less likely to have a subsequent birth and took longer to conceive than women with a previous vaginal delivery. However the sample size was very small
Hemminki et al., 1985 [36]	Median BI (mths): CS delivery (44.4); vaginal delivery (45.6)	No significant difference in waiting time to next birth among women with a previous Caesarean section compared to women with a previous vaginal delivery

Table Legend: SVD Spontaneous vaginal delivery, CS Caesarean section, Mths Months, IPI Inter-pregnancy Interval, BI Birth Interval, RR Relative Risk, IQR Interquartile Range.

#Tower et al. reported both the median IPI and BI.