Could a randomised trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery

British Medical Journal

Volumn 331, Issue 7515, 2005, Pages 490-491

  Lavender, Tina ^a   Kingdon, Carol ^a   Hart, Anna ^b   Gyte, Gill ^c   Gabbay, Mark ^c   Neilson, James P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CESAREAN SECTION; CONSULTATION; ELECTIVE SURGERY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MIDWIFE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CESAREAN SECTION; CONSULTANTS; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL STAFF, HOSPITAL; MIDWIFERY; NURSE MIDWIVES; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANCY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE;

EID: 24344482985     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38560.572639.3A     Document Type: Review

References (4)

1. Minkoff H, Chervenak F. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003;348:946-50.
2. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Caesarean section clinical guideline. London: RCOG Press, 2004.
3. Ecker JL. Once a pregnancy always a cesarean? Rationale and feasibility of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:314-8.
4. Weijer C, Shapiro SH, Glass KC, Enkin MW. Clinical equipoise and not the uncertainty principle is the moral underpinning of the randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2000;321:756-8.