Making sense of rising caesarean section rates

British Medical Journal

Volumn 329, Issue 7468, 2004, Pages 696-697

  Anderson, Geoffrey M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREECH PRESENTATION; CANADA; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY; EDITORIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAFETY; UNITED STATES; URINE INCONTINENCE; VAGINAL DELIVERY; DECISION MAKING; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICS;

CESAREAN SECTION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PREGNANCY; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 4644360096     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.329.7468.696     Document Type: Editorial

References (10)

1. Anderson G, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate: Ontario data 1979-1982. N Engl J Med 1984;311:887-92.
2. Lomas J, Enkin M, Anderson GM, Hannah WJ, Vayda E, Singer J. Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines: delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991;265:2202-7.
3. Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The national sentinel caesarean section audit report. London: RCOG Press, 2001.
4. Minkoff H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003;348:946-50.
5. Hannah ME. Planned elective cesarean section: a reasonable choice for some women? CMAJ 2004;170:813-4.
6. Singer B. Elective cesarean sections gaining acceptance. CMAJ 2004;170:775.
7. Klein MC. Quick fix culture: the cesarean-section-on demand debate. Birth 2004;31:161-4.
8. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999;319:1397-402.
9. Flamm BL. Cesarean section: a worldwide epidemic? Birth 2000;27: 139-40.
10. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized trial. Lancet 2000;356:1375-83.