Cesarean delivery in the United Kingdom: Time trends in the General Practice Research Database

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 106, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 151-155

  Black, Corri ^a   Kaye, James A ^b   Jick, Hershel ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL MORTALITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

EID: 21244502129     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000160429.22836.c0     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Chavez GF, Takahashi E, Gregory K, Durousseau S. Rates of caesarian section delivery-United States 1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1995;44:303-7.
2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Park MM. Births: Final Data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2002;50:1-102.
3. Flamm BL. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15:81-92.
4. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London (UK): RCOG Press; 2001.
5. Lawson DH., Sherman V., Hollowell J. The General Practice Research Database. Scientific and Ethical Advisory Group. QJM 1998;91:445-52.
6. Office for National Statistics. Key Health Statistics from General Practice 1998. National Statistics, London 2000. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Key_Health_Stats_1998.pdf. Retrieved April 13, 2005.
7. Jick SS, Kaye JA, Vasilakis-Scaramozza C, García Rodríguez LA, Ruigómez A, Meier CR, et al. Validity of the general practice research database. Pharmacotherapy 2003;23:686-9.
8. Flamm BL. Once a cesarean, always a controversy. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:312-5.
9. Penn Z, Ghaem-Maghami S. Indications for a cesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15:1-15.
10. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2004;59:601-16.
11. Zelop C, Heffner LJ. The downside of cesarean delivery: short- and long-term complications. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004;47: 386-93.
12. Anderson GM. Making sense of rising cesarean section rates. BMJ 2004;329:696-7.
13. Expert Advisory Group on Cesarean Section in Scotland. Report and Recommendations to the Chief Medical Officer. May 2001. Available at: www.show.scot.nhs.uk/crag/topics/reprod/EAG1.htm. Retrieved December 16, 2002.
14. Bell JS, Campbell DM, Graham WJ, Penney GC, Ryan M, Hall MH. Do obstetric complications explain high cesarean section rates among women over 30? A retrospective analysis. BMJ 2001;322:894-5.
15. Leitch CR, Walker JJ. The rise in Cesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:621-6.
16. Jackson N, Paterson-Brown S. Physical sequelae of cesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001;15:49-61.
17. Hemminki E. Impact of cesarean section on future pregnancy-a review of cohort studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1996;10:366-79.