Use of the robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: A secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys

The Lancet Global Health

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2015, Pages e260-e270

  Vogel, Joshua P ^a,b   Betrán, Ana Pilar ^b   Vindevoghel, Nadia ^c   Souza, João Paulo ^d,e   Torloni, Maria Regina ^f,g   Zhang, Jun ^h   Tunçalp, Özge ^b   Mori, Rintaro ⁱ   Morisaki, Naho ^i,j   Ortiz Panozo, Eduardo ^k   Hernandez, Bernardo ^l   Pérez Cuevas, Ricardo ^m   Qureshi, Zahida ⁿ   Gülmezoglu, A Metin ^b   Temmerman, Marleen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^c Calgary Rural and Highland Primary Care Networks   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^e GLIDE Technical Cooperation and Research   (Brazil)

^f FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^g Dermatologist at the STD AIDS Reference and Train   (Brazil)

^h SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (China)

ⁱ NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHILD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Japan)

^j UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^k INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SALUD PÚBLICA   (Mexico)

^l UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^m Division of Social Protection and Health   (Mexico)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI   (Kenya)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DELIVERY; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HUMAN; LABOR INDUCTION; MATERNAL MORBIDITY; NEWBORN MORBIDITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERINATAL MORBIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBSON CLASSIFICATION; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; ADULT; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; PREGNANCY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS;

ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 84927910970     PISSN: None     EISSN: 2214109X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. The State of the World's Children 2013 2013, UNICEF, UNICEF, New York, (accessed March 23, 2015). http://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/.
2. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985, 2:436-437. WHO.
3. Ye J, Betrán AP, Vela MG, Souza JP, Zhang J Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth 2014, 41:237-244.
4. Gibbons L, Belizan J, Lauer J, Betran A Inequities in the use of caesarean sections in the World. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012, 206:331.
5. Stanton CK, Dubourg D, De Brouwere V, Pujades M, Ronsmans C Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 2005, 83:449-455.
6. Boyle A, Reddy UM Epidemiology of cesarean delivery: the scope of the problem. Semin Perinatol 2012, 36:308-314.
7. Souza J, Gülmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, et al. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med 2010, 8:71.
8. Torloni MR, Betrán AP, Souza JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011, 6:e14566.
9. Robson MS Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001, 12:23-39.
10. Tan JK, Tan EL, Kanagalingan D, Tan LK Rational dissection of a high institutional cesarean section rate: an analysis using the Robson Ten Group Classification System. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014, published online Nov 5. 10.1111/jog.12608.
11. Amatya A, Paudel R, Poudyal A, Wagle RR, Singh M, Thapa S Examining stratified cesarean section rates using Robson classification system at Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital. J Nepal Health Res Counc 2013, 11:255-258.
12. Abdel-Aleem H, Shaaban OM, Hassanin AI, Ibraheem AA Analysis of cesarean delivery at Assiut University Hospital using the Ten Group Classification System. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013, 123:119-123.
13. Kelly S, Sprague A, Fell DB, et al. Examining caesarean section rates in Canada using the Robson classification system. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013, 35:206-214.
14. Brennan DJ, Robson MS, Murphy M, O'Herlihy C Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009, 201:308.
15. Delbaere I, Cammu H, Martens E, Tency I, Martens G, Temmerman M Limiting the caesarean section rate in low risk pregnancies is key to lowering the trend of increased abdominal deliveries: an observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011, 12:3.
16. Betrán AP, Gulmezoglu M, Robson M, et al. WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health in Latin America: classifying caesarean sections. Reprod Health 2009, 6:18.
17. Robson MS Can we reduce the caesarean section rate?. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001, 15:179-194.
18. Shah A, Faundes A, Machoki M, et al. Methodological considerations in implementing the WHO Global Survey for Monitoring Maternal and Perinatal Health. Bull World Health Organ 2008, 86:126-131.
19. Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2013, 27:297-308.
20. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006, 367:1819-1829.
21. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Taneepanichskul S Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010, 375:490-499.
22. Shah A, Fawole B, M'imunya JM, et al. Cesarean delivery outcomes from the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Africa. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009, 107:191-197.
23. Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Vogel J, et al. Moving beyond essential interventions for reduction of maternal mortality (the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health): a cross-sectional study. Lancet 2013, 381:1747-1755.
24. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:344-349. STROBE Initiative.
25. Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z The World Health Organization multicountry survey on maternal and newborn health: study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 11:286.
26. Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2013 2013, WHO, World Health Organization, Geneva.
27. Human Development Report 2013 2013, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Development Programme, New York, (accessed March 23, 2015). http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/14/hdr2013_en_complete.pdf.
28. Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007, 21:98-113.
29. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999, 319:1397-1400.
30. Torloni MR, Campos Mansilla B, Merialdi M, Betran A What do popular Spanish women's magazines say about caesarean section? A 21-year survey. BJOG 2014, 121:548-555.
31. Fuglenes D, Øian P, Kristiansen IS Obstetricians' choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 200:e1-48.
32. Fuglenes DD, Aas EE, Botten GG, Øian PP, Kristiansen ISI Why do some pregnant women prefer cesarean? The influence of parity, delivery experiences, and fear. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011, 205:45-49.
33. Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM Patterns and outcomes of induction of labour in Africa and Asia: a secondary analysis of the WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Neonatal Health. PLoS One 2013, 8:e65612.
34. Brennan DJ, Murphy M, Robson MS, O'Herlihy C The singleton, cephalic, nulliparous woman after 36 weeks of gestation: contribution to overall cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 117(2 pt 1):273-279.
35. Slavin V, Fenwick J Use of a classification tool to determine groups of women that contribute to the cesarean section rate: establishing a baseline for clinical decision making and quality improvement. Int J Childbirth 2012, 2:85-94.
36. Stavrou EP, Ford JB, Shand AW, Morris JM, Roberts CL Epidemiology and trends for Caesarean section births in New South Wales, Australia: a population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010, 11:8.
37. Kieser KE, Baskett TF A 10-year population-based study of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2002, 100:749-753.
38. Algert CS, Morris JM, Simpson JM, Ford JB, Roberts CL Labor before a primary cesarean delivery: reduced risk of uterine rupture in a subsequent trial of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2008, 112:1061-1066.
39. Khunpradit S, Tavender E, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Wasiak J, Gruen RL Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 6. CD005528.
40. WHO recommendations for induction of labour 2011, WHO, World Health Organization, Geneva, (accessed March 23, 2015). http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501156_eng.pdf.
41. 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 randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000, 356:1375-1383.
42. Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it. PLoS One 2013, 9:e97769.
43. Examining cesarean delivery rates in British Columbia using the Robson Ten Classification. Part 1: understanding the ten groups 2011, Perinatal Services British Columbia, Perinatal Services British Columbia, Vancouver.