Cesarean delivery rates revisiting a 3-decades-old dogma

JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association

Volumn 314, Issue 21, 2015, Pages 2238-2240

  D'Alton, Mary E ^a   Hehir, Mark P ^a  

^a Department of Neurology and the Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

OXYTOCIN;

AMNIOTOMY; AUSTRALIA; BRAZIL; BREECH EXTRACTION; CANADA; CESAREAN SECTION; CYPRUS; DYSTOCIA; EDITORIAL; FERTILITY; FETUS MONITORING; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; ICELAND; INCIDENCE; INTRAPARTUM CARE; LABOR ONSET; LABOR STAGE 1; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MATERNAL MORBIDITY; MATERNAL MORTALITY; NEWBORN INTENSIVE CARE; NEWBORN MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVATE PRACTICE; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX DILATATION; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION; FEMALE; INFANT MORTALITY; PREGNANCY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS;

CESAREAN SECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT MORTALITY; MATERNAL MORTALITY; PREGNANCY;

EID: 84949524189     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: 15383598     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.15948     Document Type: Editorial

References (17)

1. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436-437.
2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Cesarean sections (indicator). https://data.oecd.org/healthcare/caesareansections. htm. doi: 10.178 7/adc3c39f-en. Accessed November 10, 2015.
3. Molina G,Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.15553.
4. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: Final data for 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;64(1):1-65.
5. Canadian Institute of Health information. Health indicators: Cesarean section. https://www.cihi.ca/en. Accessed November 7, 2015.
6. Australian Institute of Health andWelfare. Australia's mothers and babies 2012. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id =60129550033. Accessed November 7, 2015.
7. Vieira GO, Fernandes LG, de Oliveira NF, Silva LR, Vieira Tde O. Factors associated with cesarean delivery in public and private hospitals in a city of northeastern Brazil: A c ross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:132.
8. Macfarlane AJ, Blondel B, Mohangoo AD, et al; Euro-Peristat Scientific Committee.Wide differences in mode of delivery within Eur ope: Risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study [published online March 9, 2015]. BJOG. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13284.
9. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rous e DJ; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179-193.
10. Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68(6):1568-1575.
11. Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GML. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of elect ronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3): CD006066.
12. Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte GM. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 3:CD004660.
13. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Cesarean Section. London, England: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2011:1-282.
14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 559: Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 121(4) 904-907.
15. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1281-1287.
16. Robson M. Classification of cesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12:23-39.
17. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e14566.