The economic case for planned cesarean section for breech presentation at term

CMAJ. Canadian Medical Association Journal

Volumn 174, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1118-1119

  Henderson, Jane ^a   Petrou, Stavros ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREECH EXTRACTION; CESAREAN SECTION; ECONOMIC ASPECT; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MEDICAL FEE; NEWBORN MORBIDITY; NOTE; OBSTETRICS; VAGINAL DELIVERY; ADULT; BREECH PRESENTATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICS;

ADULT; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS;

EID: 33645906235     PISSN: 08203946     EISSN: 14882329     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060171     Document Type: Note

References (7)

1. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, et al.; Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000;356:1375-83.
2. Palencia R, Gafni A, Hannah ME, et al. The costs of planned cesarean versus planned vaginal birth in the Term Breech Trial. CMAJ 2006;174(8):1109-13.
3. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care. Oxford University Press: Oxford;2005.
4. Henderson J, McCandlish R, Kumiega L, et al. Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108:149-57.
5. Petrou S, Mehta Z, Hockley C, et al. The impact of preterm birth on hospital inpatient admissions and costs during the first five years of life. Pediatrics 2003;112:1290-7.
6. Bewley S. The unfacts of "request" caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;109:597-605.
7. Petrou S, Henderson J. Preference-based approaches to measuring the benefits of perinatal care. Birth 2003;30:217-26.