Lack of progress in labor as a reason for cesarean

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 95, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 589-595

  Gifford, Deidre Spelliscy ^a,b   Morton, Sally C ^a   Fiske, Mary ^a   Keesey, Joan ^a   Keeler, Emmett ^a   Kahn, Katherine L ^a,c  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LABOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; META ANALYSIS; MULTICENTER STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT INDICATION; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX DILATATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PREGNANCY; PREVALENCE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0034009192     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00575-X     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Rates of cesarean delivery - United States, 1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 44:1995;303-307.
2. Indications for cesarean section Final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth . Can Med Assoc J. 134:1986;1348-1352.
3. Heilbrunn J.Z., Park R.E. Variations in the use of cesarean sections Literature synthesis. MR-330 . 1995;RAND, Santa Monica, California.
4. Paul R.H., Miller D.A. Cesarean birth How to reduce the rate . Am J Obstet Gynecol. 172:1995;1903-1911.
5. Stafford R.S. Alternative strategies for controlling rising cesarean section rates. JAMA. 263:1990;683-687.
6. Lopez-Zeno J.A., Peaceman A.M., Adashek J.A., Socol M.L. A controlled trial of a program for the active management of labor. N Engl J Med. 326:1992;450-454.
7. Frigoletto F.D., Lieberman E., Lang J.M., Cohen A., Barss V., Ringer S., et al. A clinical trial of active management of labor. N Engl J Med. 333:1995;745-750.
8. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dystocia. ACOG technical bulletin no. 137. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1989.
9. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dystocia and the augmentation of labor. ACOG technical bulletin no. 218. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1995.
10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. ACOG technical bulletin no. 152. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1991.
11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. ACOG technical bulletin no. 196. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1994.
12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Quality assessment and improvement in obstetrics and gynecology. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1994.
13. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 33:1977;159-174.
14. Vital Statistics for the United States. Natality. Hyattsville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1991:1.
15. Dystocia due to abnormalities of the expulsive forces. In: Cunningham FG, MacDonald FC, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC, eds. Williams obstetrics. 19th ed. Norwalk, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, 1993:475-91.
16. O'Brien W.F., Cefalo R.C. Labor and delivery. Gabbe S.G., Niebyl J., Simpson J.L. Obstetrics Normal and problem pregnancies . 1986;351-378 Churchill Livingstone, New York.
17. Dystocia due to abnormalities of the expulsive forces. In: Pritchard JA, MacDonald PC, eds. Williams obstetrics. 15th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1976:656-65.
18. Baldwin L.M., Raine T., Jenkins L.D., Hart L.G., Rosenblatt R. Do providers adhere to ACOG standards? The case of prenatal care. Obstet Gynecol. 84:1994;549-556.
19. Jones L., LoGerfo J., Shy K., Connell F., Holt V., Parrish K., et al. STORQS Washington's Statewide Obstetrical Review and Quality System: Overview and provider evaluation . QRB Qual Rev Bull. 19:1993;110-118.