A thirty-year analysis of cesarean section rate in gestational diabetes and normal pregnant population in Tehran, Iran: a concerning trend

References

• World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black C, Kaye JA, Jick H. Cesarean delivery in the United Kingdom: Time trends in the general practice research database. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:151–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laws PJ, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2002. Perinatal Statistics Series No. 15. Sydney: National Perinatal Statistics Unit; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Tranquilli AL, Giannubilo SR. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in Italy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004;84:169–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caesarean sections. Postnote No. 184. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; 2002. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn184.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Dobson R. Caesarean section rate in England and Wales hits 21. BMJ 2001;323:951.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flamm BL. Cesarean section: A worldwide epidemic? Birth 2000;27:139–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray SF. Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: Qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ 2000;321:1501–1505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehta A, Apers L, Verstraelen H, Temmerman M. Trends in caesarean section rates at a maternity hospital in Mumbai, India. J Health Popul Nutr 2001;19:306–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Diabetes Association. Gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2004;27:S88–S90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer O, Rodriguez DA, Xenakis EMJ, McFarland MB, Berkus MD, Arredondo F: Intensified versus conventional management of gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynocol;170:1036–1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hod M, Bar J, Peled Y, Fried S, Katz I, Itzhak M, Ashkenazi S, et al. Antepartum management protocol. Timing and mode of delivery in gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998;21 Suppl 2:B113–B117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sermer M, Naylor CD, Farine D, Kenshole AB, Ritchie JW, Gare DJ, Cohen HR, et al. The Toronto Tri-Hospital Gestational Diabetes Project. A preliminary review. Diabetes Care 1998;21 Suppl 2:B33–B42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1991–2002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E, Carpenter MW, Ramin SM, Casey B, Wapner RJ, et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1339–1348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman M, Kitzmiller JL, Abrams B, Cowan RM, Laros RK Jr. Obstetric complications with GDM. Effects of maternal weight. Diabetes 1991;40 Suppl 2:79–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan TA, Kjos SL, Montoro MN, Wu PY, Madrilejo NG, Gonzalez M, Nunez V, et al. Use of fetal ultrasound to select metabolic therapy for pregnancies complicated by mild gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 1994;17:275–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naylor CD, Sermer M, Chen E, Sykora K. Cesarean delivery in relation to birth weight and gestational glucose tolerance: Pathophysiology or practice style? Toronto Trihospital Gestational Diabetes Investigators. JAMA 1996;275:1165–1170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter MW, Coustan DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:768–773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Diabetes Association Workshop-Conference on gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 1980;3:399–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelop C, Heffner LJ. The downside of cesarean delivery: Short- and long-term complications. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004;47:386–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sur S, Mackenzie IZ. Does discussion of possible scar rupture influence preferred mode of delivery after a caesarean section? J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;25:338–341.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sufang G, Padmadas SS, Fengmin Z, Brown JJ, Stones RW. Delivery settings and caesarean section rates in China. Bull World Health Organ 2007;85:755–762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Editorial. Cesarean section on the rise. Lancet 2000;356:1697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapolla A, Dalfrà MG, Bonomo M, Parretti E, Mannino D, Mello G, Di Cianni G; Scientific Committee of GISOGD Group. Gestational diabetes mellitus in Italy: A multicenter study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009;145:149–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherjee SN. Rising cesarean section rate. J Obstet Gynecol India 2006;56:298–300.
   Google Scholar
• Birchard K. Defence Union suggests new approach to handling litigation costs in Ireland. Lancet 1999;354:1710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie IZ, Cooke I, Annan B. Indications for caesarean section in a consultant obstetric unit over three decades. J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;23:233–238.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lei H, Wen SW, Walker M. Determinants of caesarean delivery among women hospitalized for childbirth in a remote population in China. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25:937–943.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjø P, Cole S, Taffel S, Irgens L, Daltveit AK. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: International comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:495–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renwick MY. Caesarean section rates, Australia 1986: Variations at state and small area level. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;31:299–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Notzon FC, Placek PJ, Taffel SM. Comparisons of national cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med 1987;316:386–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar