The Application of the Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) in Caesarean Delivery Case Mix Adjustment. A Multicenter Prospective Study

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2013, Pages

  Maso, Gianpaolo ^a   Alberico, Salvatore ^a   Monasta, Lorenzo ^a   Ronfani, Luca ^a   Montico, Marcella ^a   Businelli, Caterina ^a   Soini, Valentina ^a   Piccoli, Monica ^a   Gigli, Carmine ^b,n   Domini, Daniele ^b,n   Fiscella, Claudio ^c,n   Casarsa, Sara ^c,n   Zompicchiatti, Carlo ^d,n   De Agostinis, Michela ^d,n   D'Atri, Attilio ^e,n   Mugittu, Raffaela ^e,n   La Valle, Santo ^f,n   Di Leonardo, Cristina ^f,n   Adamo, Valter ^g,n   Smiroldo, Silvia ^g,n   De Frate, Giovannil ^h,n   Olivuzzi, Monica ^h,n   Giove, Silvio ^i,n   Parente, Maria ^i,n   Bassini, Daniele ^j,n   Melazzini, Simona ^j,n   Guaschino, Secondo ^a,n   De Seta, Francesco ^a,n   Demarini, Sergio ^a,n   Travan, Laura ^a,n   Marchesoni, Diego ^k,n   Rossi, Alberto ^k,n   Simon, Giorgio ^l,n   Zicari, Sandro ^m,n   Tamburlini, Giorgio ^a,n   more..

^a INSTITUTE FOR MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH IRCCS BURLO GAROFOLO   (Italy)

^b Ospedale Civile di Gorizia   (Italy)

^c Hospital of Latisana   (Italy)

^d Hospital of Palmanova   (Italy)

^e Hospital of Monfalcone   (Italy)

^f Hospital of San Giorgio   (Italy)

^g S MARIA DEGLI ANGELI HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^h Hospital of San Daniele del Friuli   (Italy)

ⁱ S Maria dei Battuti Hospital   (Italy)

^j S Antonio Abate Hospital   (Italy)

^k UNIVERSITY OF UDINE   (Italy)

^l Public Health Department   (Italy)

^m SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

ⁿ Multicenter Study Group on mode of delivery in Friuli Venezia Giulia   (Italy)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; CASE MIX; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATERNAL CARE; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; TEN GROUP CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; ITALY; MULTICENTER STUDY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREGNANCY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; AREA UNDER CURVE; CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; LOGISTIC MODELS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ODDS RATIO; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ADJUSTMENT; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84878754555     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062364     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, et al. (2007) Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 21: 98-113.
2. Jonsdottir G, Smarason AK, Geirsson RT, Bjarnadottir RI, (2009) No correlation between caesarean section rates and perinatal mortality of singleton singleton infants over 2,500 g. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 88: 621-3.
3. National Health Institute's National Guidelines System (2010) Caesarean section: an appropriate and informed choice. Guideline n 19. Rome, Italian Ministry of Health's General Programming Directorate Press.
4. Porreco RP, Thorp JA, (1996) The caesarean birth epidemic: trends, causes, and solutions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175: 369-74.
5. Johnson JA, Tough S, (2012) Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Delayed child-bearing. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 34: 80-93.
6. Athukorala C, Rumbold AR, Willson KJ, Crowther CA, (2010) The risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women who are overweight or obese. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth10: 56.
7. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Frè M, Marsal K, Bleker O, et al. (2006) Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 113: 647-656.
8. Fuglenes D, Øian P, Kristiansen IS, (2009) Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecol 200: 48. e1-48: e8.
9. World Health Organization (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2: 436-437.
10. Cyr RM, (2006) Myth of the ideal cesarean section rate: Commentary and historic perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194: 932-6.
11. Robson MS, (2001) Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 15: 179-94.
12. Aron DC, Dwain L, Harper DL, Rosenthal GE, et al. (1998) Impact of risk-adjusting caesarean delivery rates when reporting hospital performance. JAMA 279: 1968-1972.
13. Bailit JL, Joanne M. Garrett JM, (2004) Stability of risk-adjusted primary cesarean delivery rates over time. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190: 395-400.
14. Srinivas SK, Fager C, Lorch SA, (2010) Evaluating risk-adjusted caesarean delivery rate as a measure of obstetric quality. Obstet Gynecol 115: 1007-13.
15. Bailit JL, Love TE, Dawson NV, (2006) Quality of obstetric care and risk-adjusted primary caesarean delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194: 402-7.
16. Stivanello E, Rucci P, Carretta E, Pieri G, Seghieri C, et al. (2011) Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of caesarean delivery rates in low-risk deliveries. PLoS ONE 6(11): e28060.
17. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Caesarean Delivery (2000) Evaluation of caesarean delivery. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
18. Bailit J, Garrett J, (2003) Comparison of risk-adjustment methodologies. Obstet Gynecol 102: 45-51.
19. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, et al. (2011) Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 6(1): e14566.
20. Colais P, Fantini MP, Fusco D, Carretta E, Stivanello E, et al. (2012) Risk adjustment models for interhospital comparison of CS rates using Robson's ten group classification system and other socio-demographic and clinical variables. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 12: 54.
21. Zhang J, Yu KF, (1998) What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 280: 1690-1.
22. StataCorp. (2009) Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
23. Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, et al. (2010) Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. BMJ 341: c5065.
24. Bailit JL, Love TE, (2008) The role of race in cesarean delivery rate case mix adjustment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198 69: e1-5.
25. Bailit JL, Schulkin J, Dawson NV, (2007) Risk-adjusted cesarean rates: what risk factors for cesarean delivery are important to practicing obstetricians? J Reprod Med 52: 194-8.
26. Italian Ministry of Health. National Agency for Regional Health Services (2012) Outcome Evaluation Program (PNE)-Hospital Discharge Abstracts (SDO) 2005-2011. Available: http://151.1.149.72/pne11_new/.
27. Kahn EB, Berg CJ, Callaghan WM, (2009) Caesarean delivery among women with low-risk pregnancies: a comparison of birth certificates and hospital discharge data. Obstet Gynecol 113: 33-40.
28. Chescheir N, Meints L, (2009) Prospective study of coding practices for caesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 114: 217-23.
29. Hanley GE, Janssen AP, Greyson D, (2010) Regional variation in the cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 115: 1201-8.
30. Delbaere I, Cammu H, Martens E, Tency I, Martens G, et al. (2012) Limiting the caesarean section rate in low risk pregnancies is key to lowering the trend of increased abdominal deliveries: an observational study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 12: 3.