Is the caesarean section rate a performance indicator of an obstetric unit?

References

• Feldman GB, Freiman JA. Prophylactic caesarean section at term? N Eng J Med 1985;312:1264–1267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcclure EM, Goldenberg RL, Bann CM. Maternal mortality, stillbirth and measures of obstetric care in developing and developed countries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2007;96:139–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryding EL. Investigation of 33 women who demanded CS for personal reasons. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993;72:280–285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luckacz ES, Lawrence JM, Contreras R, et al Parity, mode of delivery and pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1253–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nygaard I, Cruikshank DP. Should all women be offered elective caesarean deliver? Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:217–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minkoof H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary caesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003;348:946–950.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Monika Schind M, Birne P, Reingrabner M, et al Elective caesarean section vs. spontaneous delivery: a comparative study of birth experience. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:834–840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiklund I, Edman G, Ryding E, Andolf E. Expectation and experiences of childbirth in primiparae with caesarean section. BJOG 2008;115:324–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wax J, Cartin A, Pinette M, Blackstone J. Patient choice caesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Survey 2004;59:601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman-Cowger V, Erikson K, Spong C, et al Current practice of caesarean delivery on maternal request following the 2006 State-of-the Science Conference. J Reprod Med 2010;55:25–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conference Statement. NIH State-of-the-Science Conference statement on Caesarean delivery on maternal request. 2006;23:1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Bettes B, Coleman V, Zinberg S, et al Caesarean delivery on maternal request: obstetrician-gynecologists' knowledge, perception and practice patterns. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groom K, Paterson-Brown S, Fisk N. Temporal and geographical variation in UK obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;100(6):1257–1265.
   Google Scholar
• FIGO Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Reproduction and Women's Health. Recommendations on ethical issues in obstetrics and gynaecology. London: FIGO Committee; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• ACOG Committee Opinion No 289. Surgery and patient choice: the ethics of decision making. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O'Leary CM, de Klerk N, Keogh J, Pennell C, de Groot J, York L, Mulroy S, Stanley F. Trends in mode of delivery during 1984–2003: can they be explained by pregnancy and delivery complications? BJOJ 2007;114:855–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montan S. Increased risk in the elderly parturient. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:110–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergholt T, Lim LK, Jørgensen JS, Robson MS. Maternal body mass index in the first trimester and risk of caesarean delivery in nulliparous women in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:163.e1–163.e5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaiser PS, Kirby RS. Obesity as a risk factor for caesarean in a low-risk population. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:39–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas J, Paranjothy S, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Walker SP, McCarthy EA, Ugoni A, Lee A, et al Caesarean delivery or vaginal birth a survey of patient and clinician thresholds. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:67–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thacker SB, Stroup D, Chang M. Continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring for fetal assessment during labour{Cochrane} In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(4).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene MF. Vaginal delivery after prior caesarean section – is the risk acceptable? N Eng J Med 2001;345:54–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson DP, Davis NR, Brown AJ. Risk of caesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1565–1572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labour and the relationship to caesarean delivery: a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:628–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith GC, Shah I, White IR, Pell JP Dobbie R. Mode of delivery and the risk of delivery related perinatal death among twins at term: a retrospective cohort study of 8073 births. BJOG 2007;112:1139–1144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Visser GH. The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in the Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants. BJOG 2005;112:205–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel R, Murphy DJ. Forceps delivery in modern obstetric practice. BMJ 2004;328:1302–1305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing caesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med 1984;311:887–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinnock M, Robson S. Obstetric trainees' experience in vaginal breech delivery: implications for future practice. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:900–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getahun D, Oyles Y, Salihu HM, et al previous CS delivery and the risks of placenta previa and placental abruption. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith P, Pell J, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2004;362:1779–1784.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennare R, Tucker G, Heard A, et al Risks of adverse outcomes in the next birth after a Caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:270–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahtiyar M, Julien S, Robinson J, et al Prior caesarean delivery is not associated with an increased risk of stillbirths in a subsequent pregnancy: analysis of US perinatal mortality data, 1995–1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spong C, Landon M, Gilbert S, et al Risk of uterine rupture and adverse perinatal outcome at term after caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:801–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffrey EL, Frigoletto, Fredric D. Caesarean delivery and the risk-benefit calculus. N Engl J Med 2007;356:885–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM. Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:907–912.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence based strategies for reducing CSR: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007;34, 53–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uptodate 12: factors reducing CSR.
   Google Scholar
• Uptodate 4: increasing CSR following ECV.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:436–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosgrove SA. Reduction of unwarranted operative interference in obstetrics. Proceedings of 1st American Congress Obstet Gynecol 1939:67–74Evanston (IL): The Mumm Print Shop, Inc; 1941.
   Google Scholar
• Robson MS. Classification of CS. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001;12:23–29.
   Google Scholar
• Bailit JL. Meauring the quality of inpatient obstetrical care. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007;62:207–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar