The change in the rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section

Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 37-43

  Grobman, William A ^a   Lai, Yinglei ⁱ   Landon, Mark B ^b   Spong, Catherine Y ^j   Rouse, Dwight J ^c   Varner, Michael W ^d   Caritis, Steve N ^e   Harper, Margaret ^f   Wapner, Ronald J ^g   Sorokin, Yoram ^h  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^f WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^g THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^h WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

prior caesarean section; time trend; trial of birth; vaginal birth after caesarean

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; NORMAL HUMAN; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY RATE; REGISTER; TRIAL OF LABOR; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; TRIAL OF LABOR; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78650149423     PISSN: 02695022     EISSN: 13653016     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2010.01169.x     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman MF,. Caesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. Seminars in Perinatology 2006; 30: 235-241.
2. Zweifler J, Garza A, Hughes S, Stanich MA, Hierholzer A, Lau M,. Vaginal birth after caesarean in California: before and after a change in guidelines. Annals of Family Medicine 2006; 4: 228-234.
3. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF,. Comparison of a trial of labour with an elecitve second caesarean section. New England Journal of Medicine 1996; 335: 689-695.
4. Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F,. The risks of lowering the caesarean delivery rate. New England Journal of Medicine 1999; 340: 54-57.
5. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of a vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. Obstetetrics and Gynecology 2007; 109: 806-812.
6. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labour after prior caesarean delivery. New England Journal of Medicine 2004; 351: 2581-2589.
7. Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E,. Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. American Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 162: 199-200.
8. Yeh J, Wactawski-Wende J, Shelton JA, Reschke J,. Temporal trends in the rates of trial of labour among low-risk pregnancies and their impact on the rates and success of vaginal birth after caesarean. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006; 194:144. e1-e12.
9. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD,. Births: preliminary data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports 2004; 53: 1-17.
10. Yang YT, Mello MM, Subramanian SV, Studdert DM,. Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of caesarean section and vaginal birth after caesarean section. Medical Care 2009; 47: 234-242.
11. Flamm BL, Newman LA, Thomas SJ, Fallon D, Yoshida MM,. Vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: results of a 5-year multicenter collaborative study. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990; 76: 750-754.
12. Miller DA, Diaz FG, Paul RH,. Vaginal birth after caesarean: a 10-year experience. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994; 84: 255-258.
13. Macones GA, Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo A, Peipert J, Stevens EJ,. Can uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after caesarean delivery be predicted? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006; 195: 1148-1152.