Using a caesarean section classification System based on characteristics of the population as a way of monitoring obstetric practice

Reproductive Health

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2010, Pages

  Costa, Maria L ^a   Cecatti, Jose G ^a   Souza, João P ^b   Milanez, Helaine M ^a   Gülmezoglu, Metin A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

^b WORLD BANK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; OBSTETRIC CARE; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

EID: 77953828634     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17424755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-7-13     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Classification of Cesarean Sections. MS Robson, Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review 2001 12 1 23 39 10.1017/S0965539501000122 (Pubitemid 32154718)
2. Appropriate technology for birth. World Health Organization, Lancet 1985 326 8452 436 7 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3
3. Epidemic of Caesarean sections in Brazil. FC Barros JP Vaughan CG Victora SRA Huttly, Lancet 1991 338 167 9 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90149-J 1677075
4. Which policy for Caesarean section in Brazil? An analysis of trends and consequences. A Faundes JG Cecatti, Health Policy Plann 1991 8 33 42
5. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. J Villar E Valladares D Wojdyla N Zavaleta G Carroli A Velazco A Shah L Campodonico V Bataglia A Faundes A Langer A Narvaez A Donner M Romero S Reynoso KS de Padua D Giordano M Kublickas A Acosta for the WHO 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal health research group, Lancet 2006 367 9535 1819 29 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68704- 7 16753484
6. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. AP Betran M Merialdi JA Lauer W Bing-Shun J Thomas P Van Look M Wagner, Paediat Perinatal Epidemiol 2007 21 98 113 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007. 00786.x
7. Giving Birth in Canada: Providers of Maternity and Infant Care. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa. Canada: CIHI 2004
8. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. MS Robson IW Scudamore SM Walsh, Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996 174 1 199 205 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70394-0 8572006
9. Reducing Cesarean Birth Rates with Data-driven Quality Improvement Activities. EK Main, Pediatrics 1999 103 374 83 9917479
10. Identifying barriers and facilitators towards implementing guidelines to reduce cesarean section rates in Quebec. N Chaillet E Dube M Dugas D Francoeur J Dube S Gagnon L Poitras A Dumont, Bull World Health Org 2007 85 10 791 7 10.2471/BLT.06.039289 18038061
11. Evidence-Based Strategies for Reducing Cesarean Rates: A Meta Analysis. N Chaillet A Dumont, Birth 2007 34 1 53 64 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00146.x 17324180
12. A new way of looking at Caesarean section births. FP McCarthy L Rigg L Cady F Cullinane, Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007 47 316 20 10.1111/j.1479-828X. 2007.00753.x 17627688
13. Audit and Feedback: effects on professional obstetrical practice and health care outcomes in a university hospital. ML Costa JG Cecatti HM Milanez JP Souza M Gulmezoglu, Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009 88 7 793 800 10.1080/00016340903002857 19452325
14. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labor. Z Alfirevic D Devane GML Gyte, Cochrane Database Sys Rev 2007 4
15. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. AM Gulmezoglu CA Crowther P Middleton, Cochrane Database Sys Rev 2007 4
16. Continuous support for women during childbirth. ED Hodnett S Gates GJ Hofmeyr C Sakala, Cochrane Database Sys Rev 2007 4
17. Predicting success and reducing the risks when attempting vaginal birth after cesarean. LM Harper GA Macones, Obstet Gynecol Surv 2008 63 8 538 45 10.1097/OGX.0b013e31817f1505 18631410
18. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. AC Rossi V D'Addario, Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008 199 3 224 31 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04. 025 18511018
19. Audit and Feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. G Jamtvedt JM Young DT Kristoffersen MA O'Brien AD Oxman, Cochrane Database Sys Rev 2007 4
20. Use of criterion-based clinical audit to improve the quality of obstetrics care: A systematic review. EJ Kongnyuy OA Uthman, Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009 88 8 873 81 10.1080/00016340903093542 19557553
21. Usefulness of the 10 obstetric clinical groups' evaluation for the reduction of cesarean section rate in a teaching hospital. C Vera R Correa J Neira A Rioseco A Poblete Utilidad de la evaluacián de 10 grupos clínicos obstétricos para la reduccián de la tasa de cesrea en un hospital docente, Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 2004 69 3 219 26 (in Spanish)
22. Surveillance of cesarean section deliveries, New Jersey, 1999-2004. CE Denk LK Kruse NJ Jain, Birth 2006 33 3 203 9 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00105.x 16948720
23. Indications associated with increased cesarean section rates in a Swedish hospital. M Florica O Stephansson L Nordstrom, Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006 92 181 5 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.10.016 (Pubitemid 43098892)
24. WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. AP Betran AM Gulmezoglu MS Robson M Merialdi JP Souza D Wojdyla, et al. Reprod Health 2009 6 18 10.1186/1742-4755-6-18 19874598