The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Poor outcomes after breech birth might be the result of underlying conditions causing breech presentation or due to factors associated with the delivery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of planned caesarean section for singleton breech presentation at term on measures of pregnancy outcome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing planned caesarean section for singleton breech presentation at term with planned vaginal birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials (2396 participants) were included in the review. Caesarean delivery occurred in 550/1227 (45%) of those women allocated to a vaginal delivery protocol and 1060/1169 (91%) of those women allocated to planned caesarean section (average risk ratio (RR) random-effects, 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 2.20; three studies, 2396 women, evidence graded low quality). Perinatal or neonatal death (excluding fatal anomalies) or severe neonatal morbidity was reduced with a policy of planned caesarean section in settings with a low national perinatal mortality rate (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29, one study, 1025 women, evidence graded moderate quality), but not in settings with a high national perinatal mortality rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.24, one study, 1053 women, evidence graded low quality). The difference between subgroups was significant (Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 8.01, df = 1 (P = 0.005), I² = 87.5%). Due to this significant heterogeneity, a random-effects analysis was performed. The average overall effect was not statistically significant (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.44, one study, 2078 infants). Perinatal or neonatal death (excluding fatal anomalies) was reduced with planned caesarean section (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.86, three studies, 2388 women). The proportional reductions were similar for countries with low and high national perinatal mortality rates.The numbers studied were too small to satisfactorily address reductions in birth trauma and brachial plexus injury with planned caesarean section. Neither of these outcomes reached statistical significance (birth trauma: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10, one study, 2062 infants (20 events),evidence graded low quality; brachial plexus injury: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.47, three studies, 2375 infants (nine events)).Planned caesarean section was associated with modestly increased short-term maternal morbidity (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61, three studies, 2396 women,low quality evidence). At three months after delivery, women allocated to the planned caesarean section group reported less urinary incontinence (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.93, one study, 1595 women); no difference in 'any pain' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, one study, 1593 women,low quality evidence); more abdominal pain (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.79, one study, 1593 women); and less perineal pain (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.58, one study, 1593 women).At two years, there were no differences in the combined outcome 'death or neurodevelopmental delay' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.30, one study, 920 children,evidence graded low quality); more infants who had been allocated to planned caesarean delivery had medical problems at two years (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.89, one study, 843 children). Maternal outcomes at two years were also similar. In countries with low perinatal mortality rates, the protocol of planned caesarean section was associated with lower healthcare costs, expressed in 2002 Canadian dollars (mean difference -$877.00, 95% CI -894.89 to -859.11, one study, 1027 women).All of the trials included in this review had design limitations, and the GRADE level of evidence was mostly low. No studies attempted to blind the intervention, and the process of random allocation was suboptimal in two studies. Two of the three trials had serious design limitations, however these studies contributed to fewer outcomes than the large multi-centre trial with lower risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Planned caesarean section compared with planned vaginal birth reduced perinatal or neonatal death as well as the composite outcome death or serious neonatal morbidity, at the expense of somewhat increased maternal morbidity. In a subset with 2-year follow up, infant medical problems were increased following planned caesarean section and no difference in long-term neurodevelopmental delay or the outcome "death or neurodevelopmental delay" was found, though the numbers were too small to exclude the possibility of an important difference in either direction.The benefits need to be weighed against factors such as the mother's preference for vaginal birth and risks such as future pregnancy complications in the woman's specific healthcare setting. The option of external cephali
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration
Higgins, J., Green, S. R., & Higgins, J. (2008) · Cited by 5,544
A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints
Harbord, R. M., Egger, M., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2380 · Cited by 2,267
Hannah, M. E., Hannah, W. J., Hewson, S. A., Hodnett, E. D., Saigal, S., & Willan, A. R. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840-3 · Cited by 1,556
Self-citationHannah, M. E., Whyte, H., Hannah, W. J., Hewson, S., Amankwah, K., Cheng, M., Gafni, A., Guselle, P., Helewa, M., Hodnett, E. D., et al. (2004) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.08.004 · Cited by 457
Self-citationWhyte, H., Hannah, M. E., Saigal, S., Hannah, W. J., Hewson, S., Amankwah, K., Cheng, M., Gafni, A., Guselle, P., Helewa, M., et al. (2004) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.056 · Cited by 381
Self-citationHannah, M. E. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.14.1822 · Cited by 346
Self-citationExternal cephalic version for breech presentation before term
Hutton, E. K., & Hofmeyr, G. J. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000084.pub2 · Cited by 317
Self-citation&NA; (2005) · Obstetric Anesthesia Digest · doi:10.1097/00132582-200506000-00027 · Cited by 254
The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: A study of 208 cases
Collea, J. V., Chein, C., & Quilligan, E. J. (1980) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(80)90780-2 · Cited by 215
Cited by
Hannah, M. E., Hannah, W. J., Hewson, S. A., Hodnett, E. D., Saigal, S., & Willan, A. R. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02840-3 · Cited by 1,556
Self-citationShort-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children
Sandall, J., Tribe, R. M., Avery, L., Mola, G., Visser, G. H., Homer, C. S., Gibbons, D., Kelly, N. M., Kennedy, H. P., Kidanto, H., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31930-5 · Cited by 1,394
Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies
Betrán, A. P., Temmerman, M., Kingdon, C., Mohiddin, A., Opiyo, N., Torloni, M. R., Zhang, J., Musana, O., Wanyonyi, S. Z., Gülmezoglu, A. M., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31927-5 · Cited by 600
External cephalic version for breech presentation before term
Hutton, E. K., & Hofmeyr, G. J. (2006) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000084.pub2 · Cited by 317
Self-citationGlobal report on preterm birth and stillbirth (3 of 7): evidence for effectiveness of interventions
the GAPPS Review Group, Barros, F. C., Bhutta, Z. A., Batra, M., Hansen, T. N., Victora, C. G., & Rubens, C. E. (2010) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/1471-2393-10-s1-s3 · Cited by 300
Metadata
- Authors
- Hofmeyr, G. J., Hannah, M., & Lawrie, T. A.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-07-21
- Volume
- 2019
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- CD000166-CD000166
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- OpenAlex
- W1745618023
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 26
- FWCI
- 35.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd000166.pub2
- The paper
- Hofmeyr, G. J., Hannah, M., & Lawrie, T. A. (2015). Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000166.pub2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.