An analysis of the high cesarean section rates in Turkey by Robson classification

References

• Stjernholm YV, Petersson K, Eneroth E. Changed indications for cesarean sections. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(1):49–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson M. Classification of caesarean sections. Fet Matern Med Rev. 2001;12(1):23–39.
   Google Scholar
• Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: the 10-group classification system (Robson classification), induction of labor, and cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;131:S23–S27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO Robson Classification Implementation Manual: World Health Organization. Robson classification: implementation manual. World Health Organization. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; 2017. Available from: https://apps.who. int/iris/handle/10665/259512.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. (WHO/RHR/15.02). Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternalperinatal_health/cs-statement/en/
   Google Scholar
• FIGO Working Group on Challenges in. Best practice advice on the 10-Group Classification System for cesarean deliveries. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016;135(2):232–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Board And College Of Obstetrics And Gynaecology Ebcog. EBCOG position statement on caesarean section in Europe. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;219:129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza JP, Betrán AP, Dumont A, et al. A global reference for caesarean section rates (C-Model): a multicountry cross-sectional study. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gy. 2016;123(3):427–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet. 2001;15(1):179–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e14566.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumpeter JA. Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923). Q J Econ. 1949;63(2):147–173.
   Google Scholar
• Juran JM, Godfrey AB. Juran’s quality handbook. Pareto. 5th ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Financing of health care services and analysis of health expenditures in Turkey. TURKSTAT. Ministry of Health Health Statistics Yearbook; 2015. Available from: www.sagrm.gov.tr/dosyalar/SİY-2015pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, et al. Optimising caesarian section use 1 Global epidemiology of use and disparities in caesarian sections. Lancet. 2018;293:1341–1348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas S, Meadows JS, McQueen KA. Access to cesarean section will reduce maternal mortality in low-income countries: a mathematical model. World J Surg. 2016;40(7):1537–1541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festin MR, Laopaiboon M, Pattanittum P, et al. Caesarean section in four south east Asian countries: reasons for, rates, associated care practices and health outcomes. BMC Preg Childbirth. 2009;9:17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L, et al. Australia’s mothers and babies. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Bose CL, Bauserman M, Goldenberg RL, et al. The Global Network Maternal Newborn Health Registry: a multi-national, community-based registry of pregnancy outcomes. Reprod Health. 2015;12(S2):S1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM, et al. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):326.e1–326.e10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu K, Cortier H, Maldonado F, et al. Cesarean section rates and indications in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-country study from Medecins Sans Frontieres. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 Gynecol Obstet. 2009;107(3):191–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Encuesta Nacional de Salud. Familiar (FESAL 2008). San Salvador: Asociación Demografica Salvadoreña (ADS); 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson GM, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med. 1984;311(14):887–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chhetry DB, Upreti SR, Dangal G, et al. Impact evaluation of uterine prolapse surgery in Nepalese women. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2012;10(21):167–171.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–08. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):490–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolås T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK, et al. Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(4):864–870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa A, Policiano C, Clode N, et al. Indications for cesarean deliveries during a 7-year period in a tertiary hospital. Acta Med Port. 2013;26(6):649–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philippines National Statistics Office (NSO) and Macro International Inc (MI). National safe motherhood survey 1993. Calverton (MD): NSO and MI; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle A, Reddy UM, Landy HJ, et al. Primary cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(1):33–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdous J, Ahmed A, Dasgupta SK, et al. Occurrence and determinants of postpartum maternal morbidities and disabilities among women in MATLAB, Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr. 2012;30(2):143–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu S, Rusen ID, Joseph KS, et al. Recent trends in caesarean delivery rates and indications for caesarean delivery in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2004;26(8):735–742.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thomas J, Paranjothy S. National sentinel caesarean section audit report. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Gjonej R, Poloska A, Keta M, et al. The reasons of rising trend of cesarean section rate year after year. Int J Nurs Midwif. 2015;7(9–15):41.
   Google Scholar
• Hafeez M, Yasin A, Badar N, et al. Prevalence and indications of caesarean section in a teaching hospital. JIMSA. 2014;27:15–16.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory KD, Korst LM, Cane P, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean and uterine rupture rates in California. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(6):985–989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belizán JM, Minckas N, McClure EM, et al. An approach to identify a minimum and rational proportion of caesarean sections in resource-poor settings: a global network study. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(8):e894–e901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1358–1368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018;15(1):e1002494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(1):14–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349–1357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Zhang C, Zhang D. Cesarean section and the risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;300(3):503–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, et al. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gy. 2016;123(5):745–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shokry E, Marchioro L, Uhl O, et al. Investigation of the impact of birth by cesarean section on fetal and maternal metabolism. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;300(3):589–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayanaswamy M, Ambika B, Sruthi T. Cesarean delivery at maternal request in a rural medical college hospital. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2016;5(2):64–67.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Liu NH, et al. Women’s preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG. 2011;118(4):391–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCourt C, Weaver J, Statham H, et al. Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth. 2007;34(1):65–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santas G, Santas F. Trends of caesarean section rates in Turkey. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(5):658–662. Epub:Mar:658–662.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• WHO: Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;8452:436–437.
   Google Scholar
• Singh R, Nath Trivedi A. Is the caesarean section rate a performance indicator of an obstetric unit? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(2):204–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yapar Eyi EG. Concept of medical expertise in obstetrics and gynecology. Perinatal J. 2016;24(1):32–40.
   Google Scholar