The rise in caesarean section rate: The same indications but a lower threshold

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 105, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 621-626

  Leitch, C R ^a   Walker, J J ^a  

^a Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FETUS DISTRESS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALPRESENTATION; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; TEACHING HOSPITAL;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SCOTLAND; TIME FACTORS; URBAN HEALTH;

EID: 0031799090     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10176.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Macfarlane A, Chamberlain G. What is happening to caesarean section rates Lancet 1993; 342: 1005–1006.
2. Treffers PE, Pel M. The rising trend for caesarean birth. BMJ 1993; 307: 1017–1018.
3. Turner MJ, Brassil M, Gordon H. Active management of labor associated with a decrease in the cesarean section rate in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 150–154.
4. O'Driscoll K, Stronge JM, Minogue M. Active management of labour. BMJ 1973; 3: 135–137.
5. Leitch CR, Walker JJ. Cesarean section rates-evaluate the reasons for surgery. BMJ 1994; 308: 133–134.
6. Savage W, Francome C. British cesarean section rates: have we reached a plateau Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 645.
7. Lomas J. Holding back the tide of caesareans. BMJ 1988; 297: 569–570.
8. Chamberlain G. What is the correct caesarean section rate Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 403–404.
9. Thornton JG, Lilford RJ. Active management of labour: current knowledge and research issues. BMJ 1994; 309: 366–369.
10. Frigoletto FD, Lieberman E, Lang JM et al. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 745–750.
11. Olah KSJ, Neilson JP. Failure to progress in the management of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 1–3.
12. Olah KS, Gee H. The active mismanagement of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 729–731.
13. Robson MS, Scudamore W, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce caesarean-section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 199–205.
14. Thorpe-Beeston J, Banfield P, Saunders N. Outcome of breech delivery at term. EMJ 1992; 305: 746–747.
15. Hannah M, Hannah W. Caesarean section or vaginal birth for breech presentation at term. BMJ 1996; 312: 1433–1434.
16. Vanroosmalen J, Vanderdoes CD. Cesarean birth rates world-wide-a search for determinants. Trop Geo Med 1995; 47: 19–22.
17. Krishnamurthy S, Fairlie F, Cameron AD, Walker JJ, Mackenzie JR. The role of postnatal x-ray pelvimetry after cesarean-section in the management of subsequent delivery. Br J Obster Gynaecol 1991; 98: 716–718.
18. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 689–695.
19. Sultan AH, Stanton SL. Preserving the pelvic floor and perineum during childbirth: elective cesarean-section Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 731–734.
20. Almufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Obstetricians personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 1996; 347: 544.
21. Hawkins JL, Hess KR, Kubicek MA, Joyce TH, Morrow DH. A reevaluation of the association between instrument delivery and epidural analgesia. Reg Anesth 1995; 20: 50–56.