Skip to main content
PLOS Medicine logoLink to PLOS Medicine
. 2020 Nov 19;17(11):e1003429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003429

Mode of birth and risk of infection-related hospitalisation in childhood: A population cohort study of 7.17 million births from 4 high-income countries

Jessica E Miller 1,2,*, Raphael Goldacre 3, Hannah C Moore 4, Justin Zeltzer 5, Marian Knight 6, Carole Morris 7, Sian Nowell 7, Rachael Wood 7, Kim W Carter 8, Parveen Fathima 4, Nicholas de Klerk 4, Tobias Strunk 9, Jiong Li 10, Natasha Nassar 5, Lars H Pedersen 11,12,13,#, David P Burgner 1,2,14,#
Editor: Gordon C Smith15
PMCID: PMC7676705  PMID: 33211696

Abstract

Background

The proportion of births via cesarean section (CS) varies worldwide and in many countries exceeds WHO-recommended rates. Long-term health outcomes for children born by CS are poorly understood, but limited data suggest that CS is associated with increased infection-related hospitalisation. We investigated the relationship between mode of birth and childhood infection-related hospitalisation in high-income countries with varying CS rates.

Methods and findings

We conducted a multicountry population-based cohort study of all recorded singleton live births from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2015 using record-linked birth and hospitalisation data from Denmark, Scotland, England, and Australia (New South Wales and Western Australia). Birth years within the date range varied by site, but data were available from at least 2001 to 2010 for each site. Mode of birth was categorised as vaginal or CS (emergency/elective). Infection-related hospitalisations (overall and by clinical type) occurring after the birth-related discharge date were identified in children until 5 years of age by primary/secondary International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusting for maternal factors, birth parameters, and socioeconomic status, with results pooled using meta-analysis. In total, 7,174,787 live recorded births were included. Of these, 1,681,966 (23%, range by jurisdiction 17%–29%) were by CS, of which 727,755 (43%, range 38%–57%) were elective. A total of 1,502,537 offspring (21%) had at least 1 infection-related hospitalisation. Compared to vaginally born children, risk of infection was greater among CS-born children (hazard ratio (HR) from random effects model, HR 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.12, p < 0.001). The risk was higher following both elective (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.12–1.13, p < 0.001) and emergency CS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06–1.12, p < 0.001). Increased risks persisted to 5 years and were highest for respiratory, gastrointestinal, and viral infections. Findings were comparable in prespecified subanalyses of children born to mothers at low obstetric risk and unchanged in sensitivity analyses. Limitations include site-specific and longitudinal variations in clinical practice and in the definition and availability of some data. Data on postnatal factors were not available.

Conclusions

In this study, we observed a consistent association between birth by CS and infection-related hospitalisation in early childhood. Notwithstanding the limitations of observational data, the associations may reflect differences in early microbial exposure by mode of birth, which should be investigated by mechanistic studies. If our findings are confirmed, they could inform efforts to reduce elective CS rates that are not clinically indicated.


Jessica Miller and colleagues investigate whether caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of childhood infection.

Author summary

Why was this study done?

  • Health outcomes beyond the neonatal period for children born by cesarean section (CS) are not well understood.

  • CS may be associated with an increased risk of severe childhood infection requiring hospitalisation, but data are limited.

  • Whether CS is associated with increased risk of overall infection or only certain types of infection and whether the risk differs for emergency versus elective CS is unclear.

What did the researchers do and find?

  • Using total population birth and hospitalisation data from Denmark, Scotland, England, and Australia (New South Wales and Western Australia), we followed all recorded singleton live births from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2015, for up to 5 years to determine whether children were admitted to hospital with an infection.

  • We estimated risk of overall and clinical type of infection by mode of birth, vaginal, or CS (emergency/elective).

  • Among 7.17 million births, children born by elective CS, compared to vaginally born children, had a 13% increased risk for an infection-related hospitalisation and emergency CS-born children had a 9% increased risk.

  • Increased risks persisted to 5 years of age and were highest for respiratory, gastrointestinal, and other viral infections.

What do these findings mean?

  • In our large multinational study, we observed a consistent association between birth by CS and infection-related hospitalisation in early childhood.

  • Limitations include site-specific and longitudinal variations in clinical practice.

  • The associations may reflect differences in early microbial exposure by mode of birth, which should be investigated by mechanistic studies.

  • These findings may contribute to the global effort to reduce the rates of elective CS that are not medically indicated.

Introduction

Cesarean section (CS) may be a lifesaving intervention for women and babies and is the most common major surgical procedure in many countries. Since 2000, the global proportion of CS births has nearly doubled, but this increase may not be medically justified [1]. An estimated 6.2 million nonmedically indicated CSs are performed annually worldwide [2]. Recent estimates of the proportion of births by CS vary markedly by region: 4% in sub-Saharan Africa, 20% to 30% in Europe, United States, and Australia, over 40% in some regions of China, and over 70% in some private hospitals in Vietnam and Brazil [1,35].

CS has short- and long-term health implications for both mother and child; the increasing rates warrant population-level analyses of potential risks. A study in low- and middle-income countries reported disproportionately high rates of maternal and perinatal death following CS [6]. Many suggested long-term adverse outcomes in CS-born children, including increased risk of asthma, allergy, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, relate to altered immune development, and risk may vary depending on CS type (elective or emergency) [2,7,8]. Differences in the newborn microbiome by mode of birth determine early immune responses [9,10] and may influence the risk of immune-related outcomes, including infection.

There are limited data on the relationship between mode of birth and common childhood infections beyond the neonatal period. An increased risk of specific infection-related hospitalisations, mainly lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections, has been associated with CS [11,12]. An Australian study of term singleton births (n = 212,068) found an 11% and 20% increased risk of hospitalisation with bronchiolitis in children aged <12 months and 12 to 23 months, respectively [13], and a Danish study (n = 750,569) reported similarly increased risk for lower respiratory tract infection [7]. CS has also been associated with increased risk of childhood gastroenteritis [14]. A recent Israeli study among uncomplicated pregnancies and births (n = 138,910) estimated a 10% and 23% increased risk of hospitalisations with infection up to age 18 years among term-only and preterm-only elective CS births, respectively [15]. These studies are from single jurisdictions where population-specific characteristics and obstetric practice may have unknown effects. It is unclear if CS is associated with increased risk of overall infection-related hospitalisation or only certain infection types, whether risk differs for emergency versus elective CS, and if the associations may partly represent confounding by indication.

We investigated the association between mode of birth and infection-related hospitalisation in 5 populations from 4 countries with varying CS rates. Follow-up was until 5 years of age, the period of greatest infection burden [16,17]. We hypothesised that the risk of infection-related hospitalisation would be highest for (1) children born by elective CS who are not exposed to maternal vaginal microbiome during delivery; and (2) for infections of sites such as respiratory tract and gastrointestinal where direct inoculation of maternal vaginal microbiome may contribute to optimal early mucosal immune responses.

Methods

Study population

Data were from population-level databases in Denmark, Scotland, England, and Australia (New South Wales and Western Australia) and comprised linked administrative (including birth and death) and hospital data [1823]. All recorded live-born singletons were identified from each site (S1 Fig). Birth years ranged from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2015, with data from at least 2001 to 2010 available from each site. Children with congenital malformations (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes Q00–Q99) were excluded as some conditions may be associated with mode of birth and postnatally with increased infection risk.

Exposure and outcomes

Mode of birth was categorised as vaginal or CS and by type (emergency or elective) based on recorded data in the birth databases (S1 Table). Children were classified as having an infection-related hospitalisation if they had an inpatient hospital admission with 1 or more primary or secondary infection-related discharge codes (ICD-10), at least 1 day after the birth-related discharge and were less than 5 years old at discharge. Date of onset was defined as the first recorded day of contact with the hospital when patients were hospitalised. Rehospitalisation for infection within 7 days was considered as a single admission. ICD-10–coded infections were classified a priori into 7 clinical groups: invasive bacterial, skin and soft tissue, genitourinary, upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract, viral infections, and gastrointestinal, as previously described [16].

Additional variables

Maternal factors and birth parameters are shown in Table 1. Gestational age range was 24 to 43 weeks, with the exception of England where gestational age data for <30 and >42 weeks were not deemed reliable and excluded [24]. Birth weight range was 500 to 5,500 grams for all sites. Measures of socioeconomic status for the year closest to birth were based on either area level deprivation (quintiles) for Scotland, England, and Australia, or parents’ highest level of completed education [“low” (high school education or less), “middle” (college or vocational training), or “high” (graduate-level education)] for Denmark. Data on hypertensive disorders or diabetes mellitus during pregnancy and labour onset were from birth and hospital data collections (data on labour onset were unavailable for England and Scotland) (S1 Table).

Table 1. Characteristics of the study populations.

Denmark Scotland England New South Wales Western Australia
Birth data: 1997–2010 2001–2015 1 April 1998–31 March 2012 2001–2012 1996–2012
Hospital data: 1997–2015 2001–2016 1 April 1998–31 March 2012 2001–2012 1996-June 30 2013
n = 783,082 n = 719,625 n = 4,289,829 n = 945309 n = 436942
Vaginal Births Emergency Caesarean Sections Elective Caesarean Sections Vaginal Births Emergency Caesarean Sections Elective Caesarean Sections Vaginal Births Emergency Caesarean Sections Elective Caesarean Sections Vaginal Births Emergency Caesarean Sections Elective Caesarean Sections Vaginal Births Emergency Caesarean Sections Elective Caesarean Sections
Characteristic N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)
649955 (83.0) 76560 (9.8) 56567 (7.2) 537816 (74.7) 106968 (14.9) 74841 (10.4) 3312535 (77.2) 601430 (14) 375864 (8.8) 683940 (72.4) 111320 (11.8) 150049 (15.9) 308575 (70.6) 57933 (13.3) 70434 (16.1)
Sex
    Female 325023 (50.0) 34981 (45.7) 29018 (51.3) 269402 (50.1) 48393 (45.2) 37888 (50.6) 1660439 (50.1) 276929 (46) 188941 (50.3) 340554 (49.8) 50059 (45) 73938 (49.3) 154390 (50) 26705 (46.1) 35123 (49.9)
    Male 324587 (49.9) 41555 (54.3) 27526 (48.7) 268390 (49.9) 58573 (54.8) 36953 (49.4) 1604732 (48.4) 315509 (52.5) 182110 (48.5) 343195 (50.2) 61201 (55) 75932 (50.6) 154185 (50) 31228 (53.9) 35311 (50.1)
    Missing 345 (0) 24 (0) 23 (0) 24 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 47364 (1.4) 8992 (1.5) 4813 (1.3) 191 (0) 60 (0.1) 179 (0.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 179 (0.1)
Gestational Age (weeks)
    <28 295 (0) 335 (0.4) 56 (0.1) 484 (0.1) 324 (0.3) 9 (0) N/Aa N/Aa N/Aa 487 (0.1) 97 (0.1) 158 (0.1) 787 (0.3) 469 (0.8) 28 (0)
    28-<32 1179 (0.2) 1484 (1.9) 295 (0.5) 1511 (0.3) 1977 (1.8) 169 (0.2) 6613 (0.2) 7289 (1.2) 1003 (0.3) 1380 (0.2) 488 (0.4) 1240 (0.8) 1022 (0.3) 1125 (1.9) 92 (0.1)
    32-<34 1983 (0.3) 1819 (2.4) 529 (0.9) 2275 (0.4) 2251 (2.1) 374 (0.5) 15324 (0.5) 13007 (2.2) 2253 (0.6) 2708 (0.4) 797 (0.7) 1871 (1.2) 1519 (0.5) 1219 (2.1) 215 (0.3)
    34-<36 9073 (1.4) 3597 (4.7) 1337 (2.4) 7820 (1.5) 4357 (4.1) 1190 (1.6) 50506 (1.5) 25066 (4.2) 6437 (1.7) 9522 (1.4) 2410 (2.2) 4127 (2.8) 5820 (1.9) 2961 (5.1) 903 (1.3)
    36-<38 44477 (6.8) 8197 (10.7) 9587 (16.9) 35243 (6.6) 9927 (9.3) 5918 (7.9) 228737 (6.9) 60716 (10.1) 38829 (10.3) 47256 (6.9) 9744 (8.8) 14902 (9.9) 28795 (9.3) 8961 (15.5) 10853 (15.4)
    38–40 243488 (37.5) 21756 (28.4) 39965 (70.6) 347744 (64.7) 53227 (49.8) 63219 (84.5) 2177278 (65.7) 313586 (52.1) 305492 (81.3) 495779 (72.5) 69375 (62.3) 122162 (81.4) 495779 (72.5) 228010 (73.9) 33799 (58.3)
    >40 342815 (52.7) 38839 (50.7) 4643 (8.2) 141889 (26.4) 34789 (32.5) 3894 (5.2) 834077 (25.2) 181766 (30.2) 21850 (5.8) 126808 (18.5) 28409 (25.5) 5589 (3.7) 42622 (13.8) 9399 (16.2) 1520 (2.2)
    Missing 6645 (1.0) 533 (0.7) 155 (0.3) 850 (0.2) 116 (0.1) 68 (0.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Birth Weight z-score (gestational age- and sex-specific)
    ≤10 67430 (10.4) 10043 (13.1) 5192 (9.2) 40263 (7.5) 9668 (9) 3359 (4.5) 326211 (9.8) 70472 (11.7) 26193 (7) 69452 (10.2) 11689 (10.5) 12576 (8.4) 30176 (9.8) 6632 (11.5) 4820 (6.8)
    >10–25 98935 (15.2) 10155 (13.3) 7619 (13.5) 72006 (13.4) 12484 (11.7) 6156 (8.2) 509247 (15.4) 82370 (13.7) 43421 (11.6) 108537 (15.9) 14996 (13.5) 19273 (12.8) 47252 (15.3) 8003 (13.8) 8851 (12.6)
    >25–75 327933 (50.4) 34249 (44.7) 27870 (49.3) 279711 (52) 49137 (45.9) 34164 (45.6) 1633823 (49.3) 265276 (44.1) 172861 (46) 347866 (50.9) 52338 (47) 71741 (47.8) 156938 (50.9) 27532 (47.5) 34800 (49.4)
    >75–90 95963 (14.8) 11987 (15.7) 8929 (15.8) 85951 (16) 18112 (16.9) 15262 (20.4) 478383 (14.4) 90690 (15.1) 65541 (17.4) 97346 (14.2) 17633 (15.8) 25272 (16.8) 45921 (14.9) 8849 (15.3) 12302 (17.5)
    >90 53574 (8.2) 9553 (12.5) 6748 (15.8) 58303 (10.8) 17155 (16) 15721 (21) 317507 (9.6) 83630 (13.9) 63035 (16.8) 60544 (8.9) 14637 (13.1) 21128 (14.1) 28286 (9.2) 6915 (11.9) 9661 (13.7)
    Missing 6120 (0.9) 573 (0.7) 209 (0.4) 1582 (0.3) 412 (0.4) 179 (0.2) 47364 (1.4) 8992 (1.5) 4813 (1.3) 195 (0) 27 (0) 59 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0)
Smoked during Pregnancy
    No 510812 (78.6) 59175 (77.3) 45092 (79.7) 383784 (71.4) 79590 (74.4) 57854 (77.3) N/A N/A N/A 574274 (84) 96463 (86.7) 131672 (87.8) 218730 (70.9) 44590 (77) 56363 (80)
    Yes 116671 (17.9) 13949 (18.2) 9116 (16.1) 113754 (21.2) 18755 (17.5) 11428 (15.3) N/A N/A N/A 108012 (15.8) 14587 (13.1) 17788 (11.9) 50295 (16.3) 8255 (14.3) 7962 (11.3)
    Missing 22472 (3.5) 3436 (4.5) 2359 (4.2) 40278 (7.5) 8623 (8.1) 5559 (7.4) N/A N/A N/A 1654 (0.2) 270 (0.2) 589 (0.4) 39550 (12.8) 5088 (8.8) 6109 (8.7)
Maternal Age at Birth (years)
    <20 10901 (1.7) 974 (1.3) 260 (0.5) 41907 (7.8) 5763 (5.4) 1076 (1.4) 248795 (7.5) 29418 (4.9) 7172 (1.9) 29858 (4.4) 3683 (3.3) 1638 (1.1) 19617 (6.4) 2722 (4.8) 859 (1.2)
    20-<25 80749 (12.4) 8242 (10.8) 3363 (5.9) 107794 (20) 16938 (15.8) 7231 (9.7) 684618 (20.7) 95151 (15.8) 38297 (10.2) 108375 (15.8) 13851 (12.4) 10541 (7) 56919 (18.5) 8594 (14.8) 5624 (8)
    25-<30 227374 (35.0) 25756 (33.6) 14464 (25.6) 146545 (27.2) 27642 (25.8) 16657 (22.3) 929914 (28.1) 159301 (26.5) 84759 (22.6) 199146 (29.1) 30594 (27.5) 31637 (21.1) 93808 (30.4) 16524 (28.5) 16509 (23.4)
    30-<35 229139 (35.3) 26874 (35.1) 22811 (40.3) 151389 (28.1) 32818 (30.7) 25657 (34.3) 904248 (27.3) 182937 (30.4) 126525 (33.7) 218683 (32) 37564 (33.7) 55129 (36.7) 218683 (32) 91075 (29.5) 18316 (31.6)
    ≥35 101789 (15.7) 14712 (19.2) 15667 (27.7) 90179 (16.8) 23807 (22.3) 24220 (32.4) 530215 (16) 131938 (21.9) 117158 (31.2) 127878 (18.7) 25628 (23) 51104 (34.1) 127878 (18.7) 47156 (15.3) 11727 (20.2)
    Missing 3 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 14745 (0.4) 2685 (0.4) 1953 (0.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Parity
    0 271252 (41.7) 46869 (61.2) 16827 (29.7) 236663 (44) 69895 (65.3) 14867 (19.9) 867675 (26.2) 212067 (35.3) 58549 (15.6) 278461 (40.7) 75026 (67.4) 40348 (26.9) 91541 (29.7) 26173 (45.2) 12913 (18.3)
    1 244158 (37.6) 20588 (26.9) 24796 (43.8) 184603 (34.3) 24042 (22.5) 38372 (51.3) 696846 (21) 109325 (18.2) 97193 (25.9) 228007 (33.3) 23444 (21.1) 67604 (45.1) 93801 (30.4) 15649 (27) 25327 (36)
    2 94045 (14.5) 5830 (7.6) 11213 (19.8) 74244 (13.8) 7669 (7.2) 15099 (20.2) 343707 (10.4) 44529 (7.4) 55164 (14.7) 107933 (15.8) 7737 (7) 28542 (19) 58477 (19) 7637 (13.2) 16278 (23.1)
    ≥3 34937 (85.3) 2532 (6.2) 3468 (8.5) 38556 (7.2) 4408 (4.1) 6017 (8) 316577 (9.6) 42196 (7) 46499 (12.4) 68659 (10) 5002 (4.5) 13223 (8.8) 64756 (21) 8474 (14.6) 15916 (22.6)
    Missing 5563 (0.9) 741 (1.0) 263 (0.5) 3750 (0.7) 954 (0.9) 486 (0.6) 1087730 (32.8) 193313 (32.1) 118459 (31.5) 880 (0.1) 111 (0.1) 332 (0.2) 880 (0.1) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Area-level deprivation quintile (1 = most deprived, 5 = least deprived) (Denmark education level 1 = lowest, 3 = highest)
    1 70046 (10.8) 7631 (10.0) 4611 (8.2) 140224 (26.1) 26498 (24.8) 16781 (22.4) 989367 (29.9) 168767 (28.1) 89835 (23.9) 127642 (18.7) 17047 (15.3) 21533 (14.4) 47475 (15.4) 7763 (13.4) 7285 (10.3)
    2 321160 (49.4) 39009 (50.9) 27816 (49.2) 113160 (21) 22369 (20.9) 14480 (19.3) 721468 (21.8) 132322 (22) 76356 (20.3) 112553 (16.5) 16344 (14.7) 21864 (14.6) 61189 (19.8) 10978 (19) 11265 (16)
    3 252631 (38.9) 29180 (38.1) 23777 (42.0) 100199 (18.6) 20100 (18.8) 14071 (18.8) 587011 (17.7) 108977 (18.1) 70191 (18.7) 158014 (23.1) 25500 (22.9) 31539 (21) 62152 (20.1) 11961 (20.7) 13287 (18.9)
    4  N/A N/A N/A 95383 (17.7) 19303 (18) 14493 (19.4) 515136 (15.6) 95923 (15.9) 67639 (18) 130251 (19) 22699 (20.4) 28901 (19.3) 67827 (22) 13663 (23.6) 17689 (25.1)
    5  N/A N/A N/A 86007 (16) 18077 (16.9) 14529 (19.4) 483086 (14.6) 90963 (15.1) 69002 (18.4) 155241 (22.7) 29688 (26.7) 46151 (30.8) 45563 (14.8) 9678 (16.7) 15986 (22.7)
    Missing 6118 (0.9) 740 (1.0) 363 (0.6) 2843 (0.5) 621 (0.6) 487 (0.7) 16467 (0.5) 4478 (0.7) 2841 (0.8) 239 (0) 42 (0) 61 (0) 24369 (7.9) 3890 (6.7) 4922 (7)
Birth Year (calendar year)
    1996–2000 246149 (37.9) 24183 (31.6) 13742 (24.3) N/A N/A N/A 595764 (18.0) 94247 (15.7) 60493 (16.1) N/A N/A N/A 91448 (29.6) 11497 (19.8) 14718 (20.9)
    2001–2005 226418 (34.8) 28696 (37.5) 22404 (39.6) 177464 (33) 32891 (30.7) 19298 (25.8) 915788 (27.6) 160946 (26.8) 103809 (27.6) 274799 (40.2) 40639 (36.5) 51630 (34.4) 80982 (26.2) 15245 (26.3) 19903 (28.3)
    2006–2010 177388 (27.3) 23681 (30.9) 20421 (36.1) 186193 (34.6) 35865 (33.5) 25053 (33.5) 1355363 (40.9) 262193 (43.6) 158726 (42.2) 291151 (42.6) 49511 (44.5) 67962 (45.3) 95017 (30.8) 20994 (36.2) 25019 (35.5)
    2011–2015 N/A N/A N/A 174159 (32.4) 38212 (35.7) 30490 (40.7) 445620 (13.5) 84044 (14.0) 52836 (14.1) 117990 (17.3) 21170 (19) 30457 (20.3) 41128 (13.3) 10197 (17.6) 10794 (15.3)
Season of Birth
    Winter 165944 (25.5) 19262 (25.2) 14125 (25.0) 130149 (24.2) 25497 (23.8) 17480 (23.4) 791561 (23.9) 143631 (23.9) 90442 (24.1) 173455 (25.4) 28782 (25.9) 38507 (25.7) 76930 (25) 14730 (25.1) 17393 (25.5)
    Spring 173843 (26.7) 20138 (26.3) 14850 (26.2) 134826 (25.1) 26508 (24.8) 18888 (25.2) 821434 (24.8) 148118 (24.6) 93382 (24.8) 170107 (24.9) 28040 (25.2) 39040 (26) 76998 (24.5) 14458 (24.2) 17952 (24.3)
    Summer 155050 (23.9) 18893 (24.7) 14333 (25.3) 139463 (25.9) 27880 (26.1) 19654 (26.3) 866363 (26.2) 156746 (26.1) 97563 (26) 167913 (24.6) 26640 (23.9) 35529 (23.7) 75452 (25.7) 13997 (25.3) 17121 (25.5)
    Autumn 155118 (23.9) 18267 (23.9) 13259 (23.4) 133378 (24.8) 27083 (25.3) 18819 (25.1) 833177 (25.2) 152935 (25.4) 94477 (25.1) 172465 (25.2) 27858 (25) 36973 (24.6) 79195 (24.9) 14658 (25.4) 17968 (24.7)
    Missing 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Presence of Labour
    No 0 (0) 20502 (26.8) 50049 (88.5) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 (0) 8959 (15.4) 70434 (100)
    Yes 649955 (100) 56058 (73.2) 6518 (11.5) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 308575 (100) 48983 (84.6) 0 (0)
Apgar Score 5 Minutes
    Median (SD) 10 (0.5) 10 (0.9) 10 (0.5) 9 (0.8) 9 (1.1) 9 (0.7) N/A N/A N/A 9 (0.7) 9 (0.9) 9 (0.8) 9 (3.3) 9 (1.4) 9 (0.9)
Indication for Mode of Delivery (hypertensive disorders or diabetes during pregnancy):
    No/None coded 621676 (95.6) 66801 (87.3) 51801 (91.6) 508240 (94.5) 93364 (87.3) 69367 (92.7) 2859908 (86.3) 463617 (77.1) 299047 (79.6) 609667 (89.1) 90259 (81.1) 124554 (83) 285303 (92.5) 48781 (84.2) 63072 (89.6)
    Yes 28279 (4.4) 9759 (12.7) 4766 (8.4) 29576 (5.5) 13604 (12.7) 5474 (7.3) 452627 (13.7) 137813 (22.9) 76817 (20.4) 74273 (10.9) 21061 (18.9) 25495 (17) 23272 (7.5) 9152 (15.8) 7362 (10.5)
Person Years
    Mean (SD) 4.13 (1.6) 3.98 (1.7) 3.97 (1.7) 3.79 (1.7) 3.67 (1.7) 3.57 (1.7) 4.32 (1.3) 4.27 (1.5) 4.24 (1.6) 4.38 (1.1) 4.31(1.1) 4.27(1.1) 3.61 (1.8) 3.39 (1.8) 3.53 (1.8)
Number of Infection-Related Hospitalisation Diagnoses
    0 490101 (75.4) 55079 (71.9) 40439 (71.5) 430603 (80.1) 84115 (78.6) 58454 (78.1) 2709444 (81.8) 475310 (79) 301425 (80.2) 519026 (75.9) 82962 (74.5) 111119 (74.1) 221981 (71.9) 41293 (71.3) 50899 (72.3)
    1 115804 (17.8) 14756 (19.3) 11030 (19.5) 80925 (15) 16645 (15.6) 12062 (16.1) 424269 (12.8) 87854 (14.6) 51187 (13.6) 118745 (17.4) 20115 (18.1) 27325 (18.2) 56106 (18.2) 10541 (18.2) 12744 (18.1)
    2 29238 (4.5) 4251 (5.6) 3217 (5.7) 17971 (3.3) 4080 (3.8) 2932 (3.9) 113368 (3.4) 23598 (3.9) 14451 (3.8) 31225 (4.6) 5432 (4.9) 7626 (5.1) 17549 (5.7) 3401 (5.9) 3973 (5.6)
    ≥3 14812 (2.3) 2474 (3.2) 1881 (3.3) 8317 (1.5) 2128 (2) 1393 (1.9) 65454 (2) 14668 (2.4) 8801 (2.3) 14944 (2.2) 2811 (2.5) 3979 (2.7) 12939 (4.2) 2698 (4.7) 2818 (4)

a England gestational age data for <30 weeks were not deemed reliable and excluded.

CS, cesarean; SD, standard deviation.

Statistical analysis

Each site followed a standardised protocol for data coding and analysis to generate site-specific risk estimates for each study population, modelling risk of infection-related hospitalisation over time by mode of birth (S1 Analysis Plan). Children were followed from their birth-related hospital discharge date until an infection-related hospitalisation (up to the first 3 hospitalisations), death, emigration (where data were available), fifth birthday, or end of study period (which varied with years of available data, Table 1), whichever occurred first. Potential confounders were identified with directed acyclic graphs, which provide a visual representation of causal assumptions. Variables were defined as potential confounders if they were associated with exposure but not affected by the exposure, i.e., not an intermediate on the causal pathway, and if they were independent risk factors for the outcome. Multivariable analyses included smoking during pregnancy (no/yes), maternal age at birth (<20, 20 to <25, 25 to <30, 30 to <35, ≥35 years), parity (0, 1, 2, ≥3), gestational age (<28, 28 to <32, 32 to <34, 34 to <36, 36 to <38, 38 to 40, >40 weeks), birth weight (gestational age- and sex-specific z-score percentiles: ≤10, >10 to 25, >25 to 75, >75 to 90, >90), sex, birth year, season of birth (winter, spring, summer, and autumn), socioeconomic status (as described), and recorded hypertensive disorders or diabetes mellitus during pregnancy (no/yes). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models for time to first event and by Prentice, Williams, and Peterson models for recurrent events data. Recurrent events were limited to the first 3 hospitalisations as risk sets for additional hospitalisations were very small, which may result in unreliable estimates [25]. For England, smoking data were unavailable, and 30% of parity data were missing. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in the English data with and without adjusting for parity in the models and in all sites with and without adjusting for smoking. In the English data, models that did not adjust for parity were run in both the total population and in the population restricted to those with known parity status (to help disentangle any effect of parity as a confounder from any effect of missing data). For all other sites, covariates had few missing data, and no imputations were warranted.

The overall and interactive effects of labour were examined. Sites estimated infection-related hospitalisation risk for the 7 clinical infection groups. To examine how infection risk varied by child age, risks were estimated for different age periods (0 to 3, 4 to 6, 7 to 12 months, 1 to <2, 2 to <5 years of age). Finally, each site estimated infection-related hospitalisation risk in a maternal subpopulation considered at low risk for adverse outcomes, defined as cephalic-presenting infants born ≥37 weeks gestational age, with birth weight between the 10th and 90th percentiles for gestational age and sex, born to women aged 20 to 34 years without any reported hypertensive disorders or diabetes preceding or during pregnancy.

Site-specific estimates were combined in a meta-analysis. Summarised estimates included fixed and random effects models. Meta-analyses used estimates from recurrent events models, unless otherwise specified.

Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness of results. First, as we previously observed associations between prenatal antibiotic use, CS births, and childhood infection-related hospitalisation risk, we used additional variables only available in the Danish data and adjusted overall models for antibiotic use 3 months prior to and/or during pregnancy [17]. Second, to quantify unmeasured risk resulting from the lack of data on births 24 to <30 weeks gestational age in England, we restricted the Danish analysis to births ≥30 weeks gestational age. Third, as missing data were a historical issue with the English data (1998 to 2003), we compared the full English results (1998 to 2010) with restricted English results (2003 to 2012, when the issue of missing data improved). Fourth, to consider if asthma, which may be associated with CS birth [26], was an underlying cause for the observed associations, we estimated the association between mode of birth and the separate outcomes of infection-related hospitalisation with and without a concurrent diagnosis for asthma and/or wheeze using the Western Australia data. Fifth, to examine whether the association between mode of birth and infection-related hospitalisations was similar by birth year, we estimated the overall risk stratified by birth year in 4-year intervals in the Western Australia data. Lastly, to address potential unmeasured confounding, we calculated site-specific E-values [27]. E-values estimate the minimum strength of association that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the exposure and outcome in order to fully explain away the observed association. Similarly, we estimated the association between mode of birth and the negative control outcome of trauma in the Western Australia data, where these hospital data were readily available and have been validated. We hypothesised that if bias or unmeasured confounding is present, we might observe an increase in risk for noninfection-related trauma admissions.

We calculated site-specific population attributable fractions to quantify the percentage and number of infection-related hospitalisations attributable to CSs.

Site-specific analyses were performed in SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA), Stata (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA), and R (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria), depending on the site. Meta-analyses were performed in Stata SE 16.0.

This study is reported as per the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data (RECORD) guideline (S1 Checklist).

Ethics statement

Site-specific data use was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency, National Health Service (NHS) Scotland Public Benefit and Privacy Panel, Central and South Bristol Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committee, New South Wales Population and Health Services Research Ethics Committee, Western Australian Department of Health Human Research Ethics Committee, Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee, University of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee, and Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.

Results

In total, 7,174,787 children were identified and followed from birth-related hospital discharge until a maximum age of 5 years. Site-specific study characteristics are presented in Table 1. Overall, 1,681,966 (23%, range by jurisdiction 17% to 29%) were by CS, and of these, 727,755 (43%, range 38% to 57%) were elective. During the study period, the rates of emergency and elective CS increased in all populations. Parity, gestational age, and socioeconomic status distributions varied slightly by site (Table 1).

During follow-up, 1,502,537 children (21%) had at least 1 infection-related hospitalisation. Compared to vaginally born children, risk of infection-related hospitalisation was greater among CS-born children (HR from random effects model, HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.12, p < 0.001). The risk was higher following both elective (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.13, p < 0.001) and emergency CS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.12, p < 0.001), compared with vaginal births (Fig 1). The increased risk associated with CS birth persisted through early childhood, with the highest risks for infection-related hospitalisation occurring during the first 6 months of life in children born by elective CS (Fig 2).

Fig 1. Site-specific and meta-analysis HRs for infection-related hospitalisations.

Fig 1

Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth. Reference is vaginal births. CI, confidence interval; D+L, DerSimonian and Laird random effects model; HR, hazard ratio; I-V, inverse-variance weighted fixed effects model.

Fig 2. Site-specific and meta-analysis HRs for infection-related hospitalisations by age at first occurrence.

Fig 2

Estimates are from first event models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth. Reference is vaginal births. Estimates for England based on follow-up time until first infection-related hospitalisation admission as data on exact date of birth were not available. CI, confidence interval; D+L, DerSimonian and Laird random effects model; HR, hazard ratio; I-V, inverse-variance weighted fixed effects model.

A higher relative risk was observed when labour did not occur compared with births following labour (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.13, p < 0.001) (S2 Fig). When mode of birth and labour onset were jointly considered, the relative risks across exposure combinations, compared with vaginal births, were similar in size to the overall findings (S2 Table). In the low-risk maternal subpopulation, the overall relative risk of infection-related hospitalisation in children born by CS was similar to overall findings (elective CS HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.15, p < 0.001; emergency CS HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.12, p < 0.001) (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Site-specific and meta-analysis HRs for infection-related hospitalisations in children born to a low-risk population of mothers.

Fig 3

Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth. Reference is vaginal births. Low-risk population of births defined as cephalic presenting infants born ≥37 weeks gestational age, with birth weight between the 10th and 90th percentiles for gestational age and sex, born to women aged 20 to 34 years without any reported medical conditions during pregnancy. CI, confidence interval; D+L, DerSimonian and Laird random effects model; HR, hazard ratio; I-V, inverse-variance weighted fixed effects model.

Increased risks for hospitalisation were observed in all clinical infection groups. For upper and lower respiratory tract, viral, gastrointestinal infections, and genitourinary infections, the highest risk estimates were for elective CS (Fig 4).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Site-specific and meta-analysis HRs for infection-related hospitalisations by clinical infection group. Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth. Reference is vaginal births. CI, confidence interval; D+L, DerSimonian and Laird random effects model; HR, hazard ratio; I-V, inverse-variance weighted fixed effects model.

No substantial differences were observed in sensitivity analyses (S3 and S4 Tables, S3 Fig). Analyses restricted to infection-related hospitalisations either with or without a concurrent asthma and/or wheeze diagnosis were similar to the overall analyses that included all infection-related hospitalisations (S5 Table). Risks for infection-related hospitalisation stratified by birth year were similar with overlapping CIs (S6 Table). Based on the E-values, an unmeasured confounder would need a moderate association of at least 1.20 (depending on the study site and type of CS) with both mode of birth and infection-related hospitalisation in the child, in order to explain away the observed associations (S7 Table). As a reference point from the Danish data, maternal age has an association of 1.27 with mode of birth, yet the association with infection in the child is only 0.90. Similarly, the association of smoking during pregnancy with mode of birth is 0.97, but with infection in the child is 1.28. Hypertensive disorders and diabetes during pregnancy is strongly associated with mode of birth (2.69) and moderately associated with infection in the child (1.19). In the analysis of mode of birth and the negative control outcome of trauma admissions, we did not observe an association (S8 Table).

Population attributable fractions are provided in S9 Table. If the associations are causal, 2% to 3% of children with infection-related hospitalisations could attribute their infection to being born by CS. Among the 1,502,537 children who had an infection-related hospitalisation in our study, about 14,000 calculated children had infections that could be attributed to being born by emergency CS and 18,500 to being born by elective CS.

Discussion

In this multinational, population-based study, CS was associated with an approximately 10% increased risk of infection-related hospitalisation in offspring up to 5 years of age compared with vaginal birth. Across the 5 populations, risk estimates were comparable, and both elective and emergency CS were associated with infection-related hospitalisation, with the highest increased risk (13%) following elective CS. The findings point to causal determinants of susceptibility to infection shared by CS-born children, regardless of underlying indications.

The current study population is drawn from comparable high-income settings where paediatric hospital care is free, but which vary considerably with respect to obstetric practice, CS rates, proportion of emergency and elective CS, and the use of public and private obstetric care. We used a standardised protocol to eliminate methodological differences and the use of total population data reduces selection bias. In regression models, the results were not explained by known risk factors for infection, including maternal smoking, socioeconomic status, parity, birth weight, gestational age, or season of birth, and this is corroborated by similar results across populations where the distribution of these factors vary.

Our findings are in keeping with smaller population-level, single-jurisdiction studies that largely focus on specific infection outcomes, such as lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections and which show that CS is associated with increased infection-related hospitalisation, and (where data are available) with greater risk following elective CS [1115]. In contrast to previous studies, we attempted to address potential confounding by a series of sensitivity analyses. We analysed a predefined subpopulation considered at low obstetric risk in whom findings were similar to the overall cohort, indicating that confounding by indication was unlikely to be responsible for the observed associations. In addition, where data were available, we analysed a negative control outcome (hospitalisation with trauma) and observed no association with mode of birth, which gives confidence that our findings are not reflective of bias or unmeasured confounding. We adjusted for concomitant asthma and/or wheeze, which has been repeatedly associated with CS birth [26], and which may contribute to the observed associations between birth mode and infections; findings were largely unchanged. Finally, in the Danish population, where pregnancy antibiotic data were available, we adjusted for antibiotic exposure prior to and/or during pregnancy and the findings were unchanged (S4 Table).

Our study has a number of additional strengths. We restricted infection-related hospitalisations to readmission following the birth-related discharge to avoid bias from suspected neonatal sepsis that may result from direct microbial exposure during birth. The outcome was infection-related hospitalisation, which minimises differences observed in primary care or emergency department presentations that may reflect social gradients in health literacy, health-seeking behaviour, or physician management rather than clinical severity [28]. We acknowledge important limitations. Models were adjusted for confounders and we performed extensive sensitivity analyses, but residual, unmeasured confounding is possible. However, as illustrated in Fig 1, there was not a consistent pattern across the 4 countries that associations weaken upon adjustment. Second, there have been changes in clinical practice and diagnostic coding, demographics, and lifestyle that cannot be fully measured or accounted for over the study period. These include changes in obstetric guidelines, use of antenatal steroids in threatened preterm delivery and elective CS, timing of antibiotic prophylaxis relative to cord clamping at CS, and differences in covariate definitions, such as socioeconomic status. Guidelines for the use of prophylactic antibiotics at CS changed during the study period, but we were unable to quantify any impact. In Denmark, United Kingdom, and Australia, perioperative broad-spectrum antibiotics are recommended for CS, and after 2010, guidelines changed from administration after cord clamping to preincision. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines changed in 2011 [29], Danish guidelines in 2012 [30], and current Australian guidelines [31] support use of preincision antibiotics but are less prescriptive. Peripartum antibiotics may have relatively subtle microbial effects for the infant [32]. In our study, 83% of CS births occurred before 2011 and offspring would not have been exposed to antibiotics at delivery. Third, availability and definitions of some data varied between centres. We addressed these differences with sensitivity analyses where possible, and results were essentially unchanged. Categorisation of emergency and elective CSs was based on available data in the birth databases. Timing of CS relative to onset of labour was not available for England, Scotland, or New South Wales. However, Scottish national coding rules state that scheduled elective CSs that occur during labour should be recorded as emergency CSs. Fourth, although the approximate proportion of births in public versus private facilities is known for each country (e.g., 26% of births are in private hospitals in Australia [33] compared to virtually none elsewhere), individual-level facility data were unavailable, and the relationship with mode of birth is unknown. Finally, data on infections managed in primary care or in emergency departments and on postnatal factors that influence infection risk, such as infant feeding, vaccination status, and postnatal smoke exposure, were unavailable. If these varied by mode of birth, then this may affect the observed associations.

The current study did not address the mechanisms underlying the epidemiological observations, but our findings inform future research directions. Further studies in other settings, particularly low- and middle-income countries, are needed and should include data on modifiable postnatal exposures. Mechanistic studies may guide the development of interventions. Differences in initial microbial exposure by mode of birth, which may persist for months or possibly years [34], may contribute to the increased risk of infection-related hospitalisation following CS by effects on the development of postnatal immune responses. The composition and function of the early microbiome have been linked to a range of adverse short- and longer-term immune-mediated outcomes [9], although we are not aware of studies that have directly linked the postnatal microbiome with risk of common childhood infections. Infection-related hospitalisation was increased after elective CS, when membranes are usually intact at delivery, and for infections of sites where direct inoculation of maternal microbiome during vaginal delivery may be important in early protective mucosal immunity in the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts [10,35]. Additional explanations include possible effects of short-term antenatal corticosteroids given to mothers delivering via CS to reduce infant respiratory morbidity, which was recommended practice in all jurisdictions (apart from Denmark) during the latter part of the study period. Corticosteroids are broadly immunosuppressive, but there is little evidence that antenatal steroids affect the incidence of postnatal infection and individual-level data on corticosteroid exposure were unavailable. Finally, unmeasured heritable and shared environmental factors may contribute to the observed associations.

Our findings have implications for clinical practice and public health policy. CS rates are increasing and exceed international recommendations [1]. In 2010, WHO estimated the cost of “excess” CSs to be approximately US$2.32 billion [36]. Infection is the leading cause of early childhood hospitalisation, and this potential risk should be considered when discussing obstetric management, especially if vaginal birth is clinically safe and appropriate. In addition, healthcare costs of potentially avoidable childhood infection-related hospitalisation are likely to be considerable.

In conclusion, in a large multinational study, children born by CS were at increased risk of infection-related hospitalisation until age 5 years. These findings may contribute to the global effort to reduce the rates of CS that are not medically indicated.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. RECORD checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 Analysis Plan. Analysis plan for study populations.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Flowcharts for site-specific study populations.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Site-specific and meta-analysis hazard ratios for infection-related hospitalisation in births without labour.

Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth. Reference is births with labour. D+L, DerSimonian and Laird random effects model; I-V, inverse-variance weighted fixed effects model.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Site-specific and meta-analysis hazard ratios for infection-related hospitalisation, not adjusted for smoking during pregnancy.

Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth. Reference is vaginal births. D+L, DerSimonian and Laird random effects model; I-V, inverse-variance weighted fixed effects model.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Variable definition.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Risk of infection-related hospitalisation by mode of birth and presence of labour.

Estimates not available for New South Wales (Australia), Scotland, and England. Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Parity adjustments and restricted birth years, English data.

Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Fully adjusted model adjusts for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, maternal age at birth, parity (except for models that specify that parity was not adjusted for), area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Prenatal antibiotic use and gestational age, Danish data.

Estimates are from first event models adjusted for: sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Hazard ratios for infection-related hospitalisations with and without a concurrent diagnosis of asthma and/or wheeze, Western Australia data.

*All other infection-related hospitalisation excluded from the analyses. Asthma was identified with ICD-10 code J45; wheeze was identified with ICD-10 code R06.2. Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for: sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Risk of infection-related hospitalisation by birth year, Western Australia data.

Estimates are from first event models adjusted for: sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year (overall estimate only), medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

(DOCX)

S7 Table. Sensitivity analysis—E-values.

Calculated E-values for hazard ratios with outcome prevalence >15%. The E-value is defined as the minimum strength of association, on the risk ratio scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and the outcome to fully explain away a specific treatment–outcome association, conditional on the measured covariates. VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–74.

(DOCX)

S8 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Hazard ratios for trauma hospitalisations, Western Australia data.

Estimates are from first event models adjusted for: sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy (unless specified), maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

(DOCX)

S9 Table. Population attributable fractions.

Population attributable fractions are defined as the proportion of all cases (i.e., children admitted to hospital with an infection) in the population that could be attributed to the exposure (i.e., cesarean section). *Subpopulation of emergency cesarean section and vaginal births and cases only. Elective cesarean section births and cases are excluded. **Subpopulation of elective cesarean section and vaginal births and cases only. Emergency cesarean section births and cases are excluded. Mansournia Mohammad Ali, Altman Douglas G. Population attributable fraction. BMJ. 2018;360:k757.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Fiona Stanley AC for her guidance and support.

Abbreviations

CI

confidence interval

CS

cesarean section

HR

hazard ratio

ICD-10

International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision

NHS

National Health Service

NICE

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

RECORD

REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data

Data Availability

Regulations regarding access to jurisdictional data vary. Please visit the following websites for information regarding access to the same data used in this project: Denmark - Statistics Denmark website: https://www.dst.dk/en/TilSalg/skraeddersyede-loesninger or contact forskningsservice@dst.dk England - NHS Digital website: www.digital.nhs.uk Scotland - Public Health Scotland website: https://publichealthscotland.scot/ or contact phs.edris@nhs.net New South Wales, Australia - NSW Centre for Health Record Linkage website: https://www.cherel.org.au/ Western Australia - Data Linkage Western Australia website: https://www.datalinkage-wa.org.au/.

Funding Statement

NdK, KWC, and DPB received funding from National Health and Medical Research Council project grants www.nhmrc.gov.au (GTN1065494: NdK, KWC, DPB), (GTN1045668: HCM, NdK), Fellowship (1034254: HCM), and Senior Research Fellowship (GTN1064629: DPB); JEM received funding from the DHB Foundation; LHP received funding from Health Research Fund of Central Denmark Region; JL received funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation www.novonordisk.com (NNF18OC0052029), and the Danish Council for Independent Research https://dff.dk/en (DFF-6110-00019); NN received funding from Financial Markets Foundation for Children www.foundationforchildren.com.au; TS received funding from Raine Foundation Clinician Research Fellowship http://rainefoundation.org.au; RG and MK received funding from Public Health England www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england, the Li Ka Shing Foundation www.lksf.org, the Robertson Foundation www.robertsonfoundation.org, the Medical Research Council https://mrc.ukri.org, British Heart Foundation www.bhf.org.uk, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre https://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341–8. Epub 2018/10/17. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349–57. Epub 2018/10/17. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Occhi GM, de Lamare Franco Netto T, Neri MA, Rodrigues EAB, de Lourdes Vieira Fernandes A. Strategic measures to reduce the caesarean section rate in Brazil. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1290–1. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32407-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(2):e0148343 Epub 2016/02/06. 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Giang HTN, Ulrich S, Tran HT, Bechtold-Dalla Pozza S. Monitoring and interventions are needed to reduce the very high Caesarean section rates in Vietnam. Acta Paediatr. 2018. 10.1111/apa.14376 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sobhy S, Arroyo-Manzano D, Murugesu N, Karthikeyan G, Kumar V, Kaur I, et al. Maternal and perinatal mortality and complications associated with caesarean section in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1973–82. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32386-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kristensen K, Henriksen L. Cesarean section and disease associated with immune function. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(2):587–90. Epub 2015/09/16. 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.07.040 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Black M, Bhattacharya S, Philip S, Norman JE, McLernon DJ. Planned cesarean delivery at term and adverse outcomes in childhood health. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2271–9. Epub 2015/12/02. 10.1001/jama.2015.16176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Wampach L, Heintz-Buschart A, Fritz JV, Ramiro-Garcia J, Habier J, Herold M, et al. Birth mode is associated with earliest strain-conferred gut microbiome functions and immunostimulatory potential. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):5091 10.1038/s41467-018-07631-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Levy M, Kolodziejczyk AA, Thaiss CA, Elinav E. Dysbiosis and the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17(4):219–32. 10.1038/nri.2017.7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Christensen N, Sondergaard J, Christesen HT, Fisker N, Husby S. Association between mode of delivery and risk of infection in early childhood: a cohort study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2018;37(4):316–23. 10.1097/INF.0000000000001778 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bentley JP, Burgner DP, Shand AW, Bell JC, Miller JE, Nassar N. Gestation at birth, mode of birth, infant feeding and childhood hospitalization with infection. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018. Epub 2018/05/17. 10.1111/aogs.13371 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Moore HC, de Klerk N, Holt P, Richmond PC, Lehmann D. Hospitalisation for bronchiolitis in infants is more common after elective caesarean delivery. Arch Dis Child. 2012;97(5):410–4. 10.1136/archdischild-2011-300607 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bentley JP, Simpson JM, Bowen JR, Morris JM, Roberts CL, Nassar N. Gestational age, mode of birth and breastmilk feeding all influence acute early childhood gastroenteritis: a record-linkage cohort study. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16:55 10.1186/s12887-016-0591-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wainstock T, Walfisch A, Shoham-Vardi I, Segal I, Sergienko R, Landau D, et al. Term Elective Cesarean Delivery and Offspring Infectious Morbidity: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019;38(2):176–80. Epub 2018/09/27. 10.1097/INF.0000000000002197 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Miller JE, Hammond GC, Strunk T, Moore HC, Leonard H, Carter KW, et al. Association of gestational age and growth measures at birth with infection-related admissions to hospital throughout childhood: a population-based, data-linkage study from Western Australia. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016. 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00150-X . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Miller JE, Wu C, Pedersen LH, de Klerk N, Olsen J, Burgner DP. Maternal antibiotic exposure during pregnancy and hospitalization with infection in offspring: a population-based cohort study. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(2):561–71. 10.1093/ije/dyx272 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bliddal M, Broe A, Pottegard A, Olsen J, Langhoff-Roos J. The Danish Medical Birth Register. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33(1):27–36. 10.1007/s10654-018-0356-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Holman CD, Bass AJ, Rouse IL, Hobbs MS. Population-based linkage of health records in Western Australia: development of a health services research linked database. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999;23(5):453–9. 10.1111/j.1467-842x.1999.tb01297.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Herbert A, Wijlaars L, Zylbersztejn A, Cromwell D, Hardelid P. Data Resource Profile: Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC). Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(4):1093–i. 10.1093/ije/dyx015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Scotland ISD. ISD Scotland National Data Dictionary, Maternity Inpatient and Day Case (SMR02) 2019 [cited 2019 May 01]. Available from: https://www.ndc.scot.nhs.uk/Data-Dictionary/SMR-Datasets/SMR02-Maternity-Inpatient-and-Day-Case/.
  • 22.Schmidt M, Schmidt SA, Sandegaard JL, Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Sorensen HT. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol. 2015;7:449–90. 10.2147/CLEP.S91125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Centre for Epidemiology and Evidence. New South Wales Mothers and Babies 2015. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health: 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dattani N, Datta-Nemdharry P, Macfarlane A. Linking maternity data for England, 2005–06: methods and data quality. Health Stat Q. 2011;(49):53–79. 10.1057/hsq.2011.3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Amorim LD, Cai J. Modelling recurrent events: a tutorial for analysis in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(1):324–33. Epub 2014/12/17. 10.1093/ije/dyu222 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Darabi B, Rahmati S, HafeziAhmadi MR, Badfar G, Azami M. The association between caesarean section and childhood asthma: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2019;15:62 Epub 2019/11/07. 10.1186/s13223-019-0367-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–74. 10.7326/M16-2607 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Saxena S, Majeed A, Jones M. Socioeconomic differences in childhood consultation rates in general practice in England and Wales: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 1999;318(7184):642–6. 10.1136/bmj.318.7184.642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Caesarean section (NICE clinical guideline 132): National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; November 2011 [updated June 2018; cited 2019 April 01]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg132.
  • 30.Gynecology DSfOa. Danish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology—Antibiotics in Obstetrics Guidelines 2012 [cited 2019 May 01]. Available from: http://gynobsguideline.dk/sandbjerg/120425%20ANTIBIOTIKA%20endelig%2025%204%2012.pdf.
  • 31.Gynaecologists TRAaNZCoOa. Prophylactic antibiotics in obstetrics and gynaecology 2011 [cited 2019 May 01]. Available from: https://www.ranzcog.edu.au/RANZCOG_SITE/media/RANZCOG-MEDIA/Women%27s%20Health/Statement%20and%20guidelines/Clinical%20-%20General/Prophylactic-antibiotics-in-obstetrics-and-gynaecology-(C-Gen-17)-Review-July-2016.pdf?ext=.pdf.
  • 32.Lamont RF, Sobel JD, Kusanovic JP, Vaisbuch E, Mazaki-Tovi S, Kim SK, et al. Current debate on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section. BJOG. 2011;118(2):193–201. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02729.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2018. Australia’s mothers and babies 2016—in brief Perinatal statistics series no. 34. Cat. no. PER 97. Canberra: AIHW, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Fouhy F, Watkins C, Hill CJ, O'Shea CA, Nagle B, Dempsey EM, et al. Perinatal factors affect the gut microbiota up to four years after birth. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):1517 10.1038/s41467-019-09252-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bosch A, Levin E, van Houten MA, Hasrat R, Kalkman G, Biesbroek G, et al. Development of Upper Respiratory Tract Microbiota in Infancy is Affected by Mode of Delivery. EBioMedicine. 2016;9:336–45. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.05.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gibbons LBJ, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World health report. 2010;30:1–31. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Louise Gaynor-Brook

10 Jan 2020

Dear Dr Miller,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Mode Of Birth And Risk Of Infection-Related Hospitalisation In Childhood: A Total Population Study Of 7.17 Million Births From Four Countries" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by 14th Jan 2020, 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Louise Gaynor-Brook, MBBS PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Medicine

Decision Letter 1

Thomas J McBride

16 Jun 2020

Dear Dr. Miller,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Mode Of Birth And Risk Of Infection-Related Hospitalisation In Childhood: A Total Population Study Of 7.17 Million Births From Four Countries" (PMEDICINE-D-20-00075R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by a senior editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent to four independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Jul 07 2020 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Thomas McBride, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

1- Please adjust the Title slightly: “Mode Of Birth And Risk Of Infection-Related Hospitalisation In Childhood: A Population Cohort Study Of 7.17 Million Births From Four Countries”

2- Thank you for acknowledging the limits on sharing the data used in this study. Please update your data statement to include contact information (email or website) where readers may request access to each of the datasets used here.

3- Please ensure that the study is reported according to the STROBE or RECORD guideline, and include the completed checklist as Supporting Information.

Please add the following statement, or similar, to the Methods: "This study is reported as per the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline (S_ Checklist)."

The STROBE guideline can be found here: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/

The RECORD guideline can be found here: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/record/

When completing the checklist, please use section and paragraph numbers, rather than page numbers.

4- Did your study have a prospective protocol or analysis plan? Please state this (either way) early in the Methods section.

a) If a prospective analysis plan (from your funding proposal, IRB or other ethics committee submission, study protocol, or other planning document written before analyzing the data) was used in designing the study, please include the relevant prospectively written document with your revised manuscript as a Supporting Information file to be published alongside your study, and cite it in the Methods section. A legend for this file should be included at the end of your manuscript.

b) If no such document exists, please make sure that the Methods section transparently describes when analyses were planned, and when/why any data-driven changes to analyses took place.

c) In either case, changes in the analysis-- including those made in response to peer review comments-- should be identified as such in the Methods section of the paper, with rationale.

5- Please structure your abstract using the PLOS Medicine headings (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions).

6- In the abstract and throughout the manuscript, is it more accurate to describe the cohort as “all *recorded* singleton live births” or similar?

7- In the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please provide the full date range (Jan 1 1996– Dec 31 2015?), and clarify that not all cohorts covered this entire range.

8- In the Abstract and throughout the manuscript, please include p-values alongside the 95% CIs.

9- In the last sentence of the Abstract Methods and Findings section, please describe the main limitation(s) of the study's methodology.

10- In the Abstract Conclusions, please address the study implications without overreaching what can be concluded from the data; the phrase "In this study, we observed ..." may be useful.

11- At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary

12- In the Results section, please include the unadjusted HRs along with the adjusted HRs.

13- Please re-organize the Discussion and present as follows: a short, clear summary of the article's findings; what the study adds to existing research and where and why the results may differ from previous research; strengths and limitations of the study; implications and next steps for research, clinical practice, and/or public policy; one-paragraph conclusion.

14- In the Conclusion, please be a bit more specific regarding the implications and recommendations for future research.

15- Please place reference numbers in square brackets preceding punctuation. Please also make sure to use the "Vancouver" style for reference formatting, and see our website for other reference guidelines https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-references

16- Please provide titles and legends for each individual table and figure in the Supporting Information and list all SI files at the end of the manuscript text.

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: Miller et al. present the findings of a multi-country analysis evaluating the association between children born by CS compared to vagina delivery and infection-related hospitalisation. The statistical methods are straightforward, using multivariate Cox regression models to determine the AHRs for harmonised across country-specific data, and pooled into an aggregate figure in a two-stage process used fixed and random-effects meta-analysis. The results are largely consistent with previous studies, but this study does have a much larger sample size, include broader range of IRHs, and use some additional methods to address residual confounding, including using DAGs to graphically identify confounders, and E-values to measure the potential effects of unmeasured confounding on the results. The results are quite consistent across all four countries, and should generalise to developed countries with similar quality of obstetrics care.

Major comments

1) I thought what would strengthen the case for this paper is the authors could elaborate a bit further in the discussion what this particular adds compared to previous Australian (ref 13) and Danish studies (ref 7). Both these previous studies are not small either (Australian study n = 212k; Danish study n = 750k) which also quite similar results (11-20% increased risk). That means highlighting what the limitations of these previous studies may have been and what this current study has improved upon. As it stands, the study feels largely like a confirmatory study of previous results (which itself is important aspect of science) but I think the authors could enhance the novelty of their approach a bit further.

2) The primary limitation the authors eluded to in the introduction and discussion (which I agree with) is confounding by indication. As a randomised trial is clearly not possible, a causal relationship remains elusive. Whilst the authors have given this thought, through use of DAGS to identify potential confounders and quantify the influence through E-values, the main multivariate statistical analysis does not actually attempt to address this issue. I thought there was a clear opportunity here to use a propensity score adjustment in the model (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000359) either using a matching process or just direct adjusting for the PS. The extraordinary size of the sample also creates an opportunity for covariate balancing (https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/rssb.12027).

This is not to say what the authors did in the analysis was incorrect (as their approach is entirely valid) but rather that their primary limitation could be partially addressed by consideration of the above statistical approaches.

3) I would have liked to seen some thought given to using a negative control outcome (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5428075/) to further strengthen the causal inference framework. Non-infection related hospitalisations could potentially be used here (the inverse of the outcome). The hypothesized mechanism would be that any sources of unmeasured confounding would also lead to an increase in non-infection related hospitalisation. An expected null results in the negative control outcome would remarkably strengthen the results.

Minor:

4) Abstract methods: specify whether pooled results following in the findings section of the abstract are from fixed or random-effects meta-analysis

5) Methods - statistical analysis: Use of DAGS - I agree that DAGS are useful tools here for causal inference as a graphic tool but I haven't seen where the authors specifically elaborated how they were used to identify confounder in the multivariate analysis. Please elaborate on variable selection and criteria applied.

6) Methods - sensitivity analysis: Was the sensitivity analysis on English data conducted with imputation of parity or was this as complete case analyses? And imputation was used - please specify the exact methodology.

Reviewer #2: The authors analyze databases and show a consistently higher incidence of hospitalization due to infection up to 5 years of age in children born by CS versus those born by vaginal delivery in four wealthy countries.

The manuscript is clear, concise and well written.

Major comments

1. I did not find the argument convincing that changes in gut flora are likely the explanation for the differences in infection rates. My objections are:

a) Do we really know that differences in gut flora following C/S persist for years?

b) What is the direct evidence that gut flora plays any role in what infections a child gets?

c) No other theories are presented. Is it possible that women who end up with a C/S seek health care for their children more often than do women who had a vaginal delivery? The authors imply that hospitalization is an objective outcome. However there are women who do not want any intervention for themselves or for their children so are less likely to have a C/S or to have their children admitted with infection.

2. I would make it a bit clearer that although the incidence of infection increased 10% with CS, only approximately 2% of children had an excess admission related to being born by CS. It might be helpful to tell the reader how many excess admissions this would be annually for each of the 5 jurisdictions that were studied.

Minor comments

3. I would clarify in the abstract that infections occurring during the birth hospitalization were excluded.

4. "An increased risk of specific infection-related hospitalisations, mainly lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections, has been associated with CS.(11, 12)" Please provide details from the quoted studies.

5. Why were children with congenital malformations excluded? With this sample size, findings should not be affected by inclusion of children who might have a higher incidence of infections. I am not suggesting that the authors re-do the study but they ought to explain to the reader why they did this.

6. Why did the authors only look at the first 3 infection related hospitalizations?

7. When did data collection end? How many children were followed for less than 5 years simply because data collection ended?

8. The terms "birth following labour" and "emergency CS" are both used. Assuming that they refer to the same thing, consistent terminology should be used throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript.

Here, Miller and colleagues present the results from a large multicenter registry based study on the associations between CS delivery and childhood risk of hospitalizations with infectious cause in the first five years of life. The topic of research is not in itself novel, but never before has this association been shown in such a large cohort. I must congratulate the authors in collecting this huge number of women/children for analysis. The text is clearly written and the study is well performed, though some concerns do arise. The sub-analyses are also interesting to evaluate potential mechanisms and diverging associations.

CS delivery has time and time again been associated with asthma development in childhood. Asthma is almost always preceded by asthmatic episodes typically initiating in the first years of life and the number one cause of hospitalization in children. Asthmatic episodes are almost always triggered by viral or bacterial infections in this window. Could asthma be the underlying cause for the associations observed? I would like to see the associations adjusted for childhood asthma and stratified for hospitalizations with/without concurrent asthma/wheeze.

Children born by CS are more often hospitalized right after birth and also more often treated for infections here. Was this potential hospital stay associated with the outcomes? E.g. the CS might only associate with later infections if the child were hospitalized after birth because of infections or other complications.

Microbiome hypothesis may be appealing, but other than differences between elective and emergency CS you have not presented much data to support this, so it comes off as speculative. To get closer to whether the associations might actually be caused by microbial derangements after CS, it would be a great strength to show that similar outcome associations existed among vaginal delivered children whose mothers were treated during birth.

A potential issue, when evaluating associations in such large datasets are the potential of insignificant significance. Would it be possible to calculate a population attributable risk fraction (PARF)?

Maybe I missed it, but how did antibiotics to the mother in pregnancy affect the associations?

No line numbers in manuscript make specific comments less trivial...

"gestational age (<28, 28-<32, 32-<34, 34-<36, 36-<38, 38-40, >40 weeks)", I would suggest more detailed i.e. weekly categorization around 37-40.

A major difference between elective and emergency CS is that the birth induction is natural in most emergency sections, whereas in many countries elective is performed at 38+0. Gestational age is a major factor for perinatal outcomes - the two week difference may carry a large part of the effect.

Since you are doing Cox regression I suggest you try various stratified Cox regression. a) stratified by year of birth; b) stratified by gestational age in detailed categories.

How do you account for increasing rates of CS if you do not adjust for birth year? I suggest you stratify by birth year.

The association between prenatal antibiotics and off-spring outcomes may be confounded (check out PMID: 25066330 also in Danish registry data showing the effect of prenatal antibiotics is not likely to be causal).

"When mode of birth and labour onset were jointly considered, the relative risks across exposure combinations, compared with vaginal births, were similar in size to the overall findings (Table S2)." → I do not agree. Your table S2 shows a similar difference in risk between pre/post labour as between elective/emergency CS in the Danish data.

In the Danish data you should be able to distinguish between induced and spontaneous delivery similar to the WA and not just from the CS coding. I don't believe your table S2 of DK vs WA are showing comparable data.

How is labour defined in DK in figure S2?

It seems to be just as large an effect of no-labour as of CS -- this does not lend support to your microbiome interpretation.

Figure 3 is not well explained -- who is the low risk group? The reference group?

In the discussion you mention the changes in policy - why not investigate the effects of these? That could be very interesting and straight-forward in your data?

Generally the whole discussion seems a bit too long and not on point with your data. Too much unfounded mechanistic talk. I would suggest more testing and discussion on the differences between countries? Could some of it be explained or elicited? As such it seems like your overall difference between elective/emergency CS is carried by England. This should be discussed in detail. And on the same line of thoughts, you see very similar estimates in DK: why?

Missing labour in table 1.

Small detail but some of the references background study are based on the same registry data that you are examining (ref 7).

"population-specific obstetric practice may have unknown effects" -- could you not investigate this?

Reviewer #4: May 2020

Review- mode of birth and risk of infection releated hospitalization in childhood

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

This study explores the prevalence of infection releated hospitalization in childhood according to delivery mode. Including over 7 million patients from four different countries. The HR was higher in the CS group for all infection related hospitalizations.

General remarks:

This is a overall interesting study with a large study size and a well thought out study protocol, there a re only a few remarks:

1. In the limitation section, please add that there is only record of hospitalizations and there is no data regarding infections which were treated ambulatory.

2. In the discussion you mention corticosteriod treatment as a part of the treatment protocol in all elective CS, is this true? If so, I would add that it is not a long term treatment.

3. Sheiner et all published a very similar study last year, this study too had a large sample size, please refer to this study with similarities and differentces. By the way, in his study population, corticosteriod population is not given automatically in all cases of elective CS.

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 2

Thomas J McBride

29 Sep 2020

Dear Dr. Miller,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Mode Of Birth And Risk Of Infection-Related Hospitalisation In Childhood: A Population Cohort Study Of 7.17 Million Births From Four Countries" (PMEDICINE-D-20-00075R2) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by three reviewers. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

Our publications team (plosmedicine@plos.org) will be in touch shortly about the production requirements for your paper, and the link and deadline for resubmission. DO NOT RESUBMIT BEFORE YOU'VE RECEIVED THE PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Oct 06 2020 11:59PM.

Sincerely,

Thomas McBride, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

------------------------------------------------------------

Comments from the Academic Editor:

Editor request #12 was to add unadjusted HRs. But they have declined to do this although they do present them in Figure 1 and the pattern is fairly reassuring. I think this is worthy of comment in the discussion. The big issue with weak associations like these is they are much more likely to be due to unmeasured confounders. One of the markers for unmeasured confounders is whether adjustment for known confounders had an effect. i.e. you are more likely to believe that an adjusted HR of 1.10 might be causal if the unadjusted HR = 1.10 than if it was 1.40.

Figure 1 shows that there is not a consistent pattern across the 4 countries that associations weaken on adjustment. I think that they should flag the analysis of unadjusted HRs in the part of the discussion where they mention unmeasured confounders as they could easily be missed otherwise.

Requests from the editors:

1- Thank you for updating your data statement. However, PLOS policy does not allow authors to be the point of contact for data requests. Please replace Lars Pedersen with a different (non-author) contact, such as an institutional data officer, or a member of the IRB.

2- Title, please add “high-income”: "Mode Of Birth And Risk Of Infection-Related Hospitalisation In Childhood: A Population Cohort Study Of 7.17 Million Births From Four *High-income* Countries"

3- Please remove the “Role of the funding source” section from the main text.

4- Please remove italics from the References.

5- Unless there was a statistical test comparing the risk of infection between elective and emergency CS, please do not report this as a difference. The Abstract lines 67-71 would read better as:

“Compared to vaginally-born children, risk of infection was greater among CS-born children (hazard ratio from random effects model, HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.09-1.12, p< 0.001). The risk was higher following both elective (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.12-1.13, p< 0.001) and emergency CS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06-1.12, p<0.001).” Please also rephrase for the same data presented in the results, Lines 305-209.

6- Table 1: the <28 weeks gestational age row for England reads N/A for all categories. Should this be 0, or is there really no data?

7- Please break up the Supplementary information into individual files for each item.

Comments from Reviewers:

Reviewer #2: All of my comments were adequately addressed.

Reviewer #3: The authors have done a very thorough review, I commend them.

I apologize that I am short on time and therefore I only go through my own comments (and my recommendation should be seen in this light).

My Q3: I meant antibiotics DURING birth. Interesting that the authors have done studies on prenatal antibiotics and offspring outcomes. In my group and other groups large registry studies with clever designs have debunked the causal association between maternal antibiotics and offspring infections back in 2014, PMID: 25066330 and 25432937 (therefore I have many reservations for the microbiome hypothesis).

My Q8: when you adjust for GA in 2 week categories I dont think you fully adjust, that's all. But I agree that such an adjustment, although finer in resolution, would not at all remove your findings.

My Q9: statified Cox is different than adjustment since it handles the non-proportional covariates (and takes advantage of the semiparametric model that is Cox). But I can see that you already have many analyses, however it would have been nice to see in the reviewer comments.

My Q11: Thank you for including the negative control

My Q15: You are correct, I apologize.

The discussion has been re-written and is very clear now and with less "fluff". Highly appreciated.

Reviewer #5: I was asked to review the earlier statistician's comments and the authors responses.

Both the comments and the responses were well done and I now recommend publication

Peter Flom

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Decision Letter 3

Thomas J McBride

16 Oct 2020

Dear Dr Miller,

On behalf of my colleagues and the academic editor, Dr. Gordon C Smith, I am delighted to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Mode Of Birth And Risk Of Infection-Related Hospitalisation In Childhood: A Population Cohort Study Of 7.17 Million Births From Four High-Income Countries" (PMEDICINE-D-20-00075R3) has been accepted for publication in PLOS Medicine.

PRODUCTION PROCESS

Before publication you will see the copyedited word document (within 5 business days) and a PDF proof shortly after that. The copyeditor will be in touch shortly before sending you the copyedited Word document. We will make some revisions at copyediting stage to conform to our general style, and for clarification. When you receive this version you should check and revise it very carefully, including figures, tables, references, and supporting information, because corrections at the next stage (proofs) will be strictly limited to (1) errors in author names or affiliations, (2) errors of scientific fact that would cause misunderstandings to readers, and (3) printer's (introduced) errors. Please return the copyedited file within 2 business days in order to ensure timely delivery of the PDF proof.

If you are likely to be away when either this document or the proof is sent, please ensure we have contact information of a second person, as we will need you to respond quickly at each point. Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there may be delays in the production process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

PRESS

A selection of our articles each week are press released by the journal. You will be contacted nearer the time if we are press releasing your article in order to approve the content and check the contact information for journalists is correct. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact.

PROFILE INFORMATION

Now that your manuscript has been accepted, please log into EM and update your profile. Go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine, log in, and click on the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page. Please update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process.

Thank you again for submitting the manuscript to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing it.

Best wishes,

Thomas McBride, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. RECORD checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Analysis Plan. Analysis plan for study populations.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. Flowcharts for site-specific study populations.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Site-specific and meta-analysis hazard ratios for infection-related hospitalisation in births without labour.

    Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth. Reference is births with labour. D+L, DerSimonian and Laird random effects model; I-V, inverse-variance weighted fixed effects model.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Site-specific and meta-analysis hazard ratios for infection-related hospitalisation, not adjusted for smoking during pregnancy.

    Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth. Reference is vaginal births. D+L, DerSimonian and Laird random effects model; I-V, inverse-variance weighted fixed effects model.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Variable definition.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Risk of infection-related hospitalisation by mode of birth and presence of labour.

    Estimates not available for New South Wales (Australia), Scotland, and England. Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Parity adjustments and restricted birth years, English data.

    Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Fully adjusted model adjusts for sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, maternal age at birth, parity (except for models that specify that parity was not adjusted for), area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Prenatal antibiotic use and gestational age, Danish data.

    Estimates are from first event models adjusted for: sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Hazard ratios for infection-related hospitalisations with and without a concurrent diagnosis of asthma and/or wheeze, Western Australia data.

    *All other infection-related hospitalisation excluded from the analyses. Asthma was identified with ICD-10 code J45; wheeze was identified with ICD-10 code R06.2. Estimates are from recurrent events models fitted for total time. Models adjusted for: sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Risk of infection-related hospitalisation by birth year, Western Australia data.

    Estimates are from first event models adjusted for: sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy, maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year (overall estimate only), medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

    (DOCX)

    S7 Table. Sensitivity analysis—E-values.

    Calculated E-values for hazard ratios with outcome prevalence >15%. The E-value is defined as the minimum strength of association, on the risk ratio scale, that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the treatment and the outcome to fully explain away a specific treatment–outcome association, conditional on the measured covariates. VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–74.

    (DOCX)

    S8 Table. Sensitivity analysis—Hazard ratios for trauma hospitalisations, Western Australia data.

    Estimates are from first event models adjusted for: sex, gestational age, birth weight z-score, smoking during pregnancy (unless specified), maternal age at birth, parity, area level deprivation, birth year, medical indication for type of delivery, and season of birth.

    (DOCX)

    S9 Table. Population attributable fractions.

    Population attributable fractions are defined as the proportion of all cases (i.e., children admitted to hospital with an infection) in the population that could be attributed to the exposure (i.e., cesarean section). *Subpopulation of emergency cesarean section and vaginal births and cases only. Elective cesarean section births and cases are excluded. **Subpopulation of elective cesarean section and vaginal births and cases only. Emergency cesarean section births and cases are excluded. Mansournia Mohammad Ali, Altman Douglas G. Population attributable fraction. BMJ. 2018;360:k757.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS Med response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Revisions_14Oct2020.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Regulations regarding access to jurisdictional data vary. Please visit the following websites for information regarding access to the same data used in this project: Denmark - Statistics Denmark website: https://www.dst.dk/en/TilSalg/skraeddersyede-loesninger or contact forskningsservice@dst.dk England - NHS Digital website: www.digital.nhs.uk Scotland - Public Health Scotland website: https://publichealthscotland.scot/ or contact phs.edris@nhs.net New South Wales, Australia - NSW Centre for Health Record Linkage website: https://www.cherel.org.au/ Western Australia - Data Linkage Western Australia website: https://www.datalinkage-wa.org.au/.


    Articles from PLoS Medicine are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES