References
- Ecker JL, Frigoletto FD. Cesarean delivery and the risk-benefit calculus. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 885–8
- Walker R, Turnbull D, Wilkinson C. Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. Birth. 2002; 29: 28–39
- Cahillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth. 2007; 34: 53–64
- Chittiphavorn S, Pinjaroen S, Suwanrath C, Soonthornpun K. Clinical practice guideline for cesarean section due to cephalopelvic disproportion. J Med Assoc Thai. 2006; 89: 735–40
- Oppenheimer LW, Holmes P, Yang Q, Yang T, Walker M, Wu WS. Adherence to guidelines on the management of dystocia and cesarean section rates. Am J Perinatol. 2007; 24: 271–5
- Fantini, MP, Stivanello, E, Frammartino, B, Barone, AP, Fusco, D, Dallolio, L. Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:100. Available online at:, , http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/6/100, (accessed December 15, 2007)
- Myers SA, Gleicher N. The Mount Sinai cesarean section reduction program: an update after six years. Soc Sci Med. 1993; 37: 1219–22
- Kristensen MO, Hedegaard M, Secher NJ. Can the use of cesarean section be regulated? A review of methods and results. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998; 77: 951–60
- Robson MS, Scudamore IA, Walsh SM. Using the medical audit cycle to reduce cesarean section rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 174: 199–205
- Gregory KD, Hackmeyer P, Gold L, Jonson AI, Platt LD. Using the continuous quality improvement process to safely lower the cesarean section rate. J Qual Improv. 1999; 25: 619–29
- Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001; 12: 23–9