CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term

Lavender, Tina, Hofmeyr, G Justus, Neilson, James P, Kingdon, Carol, Gyte, Gillian ML·2012·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004660.pub3PMC PMC4171389
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd004660.pub3

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. The European Mode of Delivery Collaboration, 1999, Elective caesarean section versus vaginal delivery in prevention of vertical HIV-1 transmission: a randomised clinical trial, Lancet, 353, 1035, 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)08084-2 · DOI
  2. Pence, 2002, The effect of delivery on umbilical arterial cord blood gases and lipid peroxides: comparison of vaginal delivery and caesarean section, Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology, 3, 212
  3. Bewley, 2002, The unfacts of 'request' caesarean section, BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 109, 597
  4. Birchard, 1999, Defence union suggest new approach to handling litigation costs in Ireland, Lancet, 354, 1710, 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)76701-5 · DOI
  5. Bost, 2003, Cesarean delivery on demand: what will it cost?, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 188, 1418, 10.1067/mob.2003.455 · DOI
  6. Chippington-Derrick, 2004, Caesarean Birth: Your Questions Answered
  7. Clement, 2001, Psychological aspects of caesarean section, Baillieres Best Practice and Research. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 15, 109, 10.1053/beog.2000.0152 · DOI
  8. Declercq, October 2002, Listening to Mothers: Report of the First National US Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences
  9. Dodd, 2002, Elective delivery of women with a twin pregnancy from 37 weeks' gestation, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10.1002/14651858.CD003582 · DOI
  10. Dodd, 2004, Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub2 · DOI
  11. Egger, 1997, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test, BMJ, 315, 629, 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Farrell, 2001, Parturition and urinary incontinence in primiparas, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 97, 350
  13. Francome, 1993, Caesarean Birth in Britain
  14. Gamble, 2000, Women's request for cesarean section: a critique of the literature, Birth, 27, 256, 10.1046/j.1523-536x.2000.00256.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. Gamble, 2007, A critique of the literature on women's request for cesarean section, Birth, 34, 331, 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00193.x · DOI
  16. Gaskin, 2003, Ina May's Guide to Childbirth
  17. Goer, 2001, The case against elective cesarean section, Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing, 15, 23, 10.1097/00005237-200112000-00004 · DOI
  18. Hall, 1999, Maternal mortality and mode of delivery, Lancet, 354, 776, 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)76016-5 · DOI
  19. Hall, 2001, Why Mothers Die 1997-1999: the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. 5th Report of the National Confidential Enquiries
  20. Hannah, 2000, Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial, Lancet, 356, 1375, 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Hannah, 2002, Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term, JAMA, 287, 1822, 10.1001/jama.287.14.1822 · DOI
  22. Hannah, 2004, Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized term breech trial, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 191, 917, 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.08.004 · DOI
  23. Hofmeyr, 2003, Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10.1002/14651858.CD000166 · DOI
  24. Hyde MJ Mostyn A Modi N Kemp PR The health implications of birth by caesarean section Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 2011 [Epub ahead of print] 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00195.x · DOI
  25. Kapellou O Effect of caesarean section on brain maturation Acta Paediatrica 2011 [Epub ahead of print] 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02427.x · DOI
  26. Karlstrom A Nystedt A Johansson M Hildingsson I Behind the myth: few women prefer a caesarean section in the absence of a medical reason Midwifery 2011 [Epub ahead of print] 10.1016/j.midw.2010.05.005 · DOI
  27. Kelleher, 1994, Caesarean section: a safe operation?, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 14, 86, 10.3109/01443619409030018 · DOI
  28. Kingdon C Baker L Lavender T Systematic review of nulliparous women's views of planned cesarean birth: the missing component in the debate about a term cephalic trial Birth 2006 229 37 · DOI
  29. Kirby, 1999, Cesarean delivery: improving on nature?, Birth, 26, 259, 10.1046/j.1523-536x.1999.00259.x · DOI
  30. Klein, 2004, Quick fix culture: the caesarean section on demand debate, Birth, 31, 161, 10.1111/j.0730-7659.2004.00300.x · DOI
  31. Lavender, 2005, Could a randomised trial answer the elective caesarean section controversy? A national survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery, BMJ, 331, 490, 10.1136/bmj.38560.572639.3A · DOI
  32. Lavender, 2009, Primigravid women's views of being approached to participate in a hypothetical term cephalic trial of planned vaginal birth versus planned cesarean birth, Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care, 36, 213, 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2009.00325.x · DOI
  33. Lilford, 1990, The relative risks of caesarean section (intrapartum and elective) and vaginal delivery: a detailed analysis to exclude the effects of medical disorders and other acute pre-existing physiological disturbances, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 97, 883, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02442.x · DOI
  34. Lowdon, 2002, Caesarean section or vaginal birth - what difference does it make?, AIMS Quarterly Journal, 14, 1
  35. MacArthur, 2011, Exclusive caesarean section delivery and subsequent urinary and faecal incontinence: a 12-year longitudinal study, BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 118, 1001, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02964.x · DOI
  36. MacDorman, 2008, Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes, Clinical Perinatology, 35, 293, 10.1016/j.clp.2008.03.007 · DOI
  37. Macfarlane, 2000, Birth counts: statistics of pregnancy and childbirth, 2
  38. MacKay, 2010, Gestational age at delivery and special educational need: retrospective cohort study of 407,503 Schoolchildren, PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000289, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000289 · DOI
  39. Madar, 1999, Hyaline membrane disease after elective delivery at term, Acta Paediatrica, 88, 1244
  40. Martin, 2002, Births: final data for 2001, National Vital Statistics Reports, 51, 1
  41. Mazzoni, 2011, Women’s preferences for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 118, 391, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x · DOI · Paper page
  42. McAleese, 2000, Caesarean section for maternal choice?, Midwifery Matters, 84, 12
  43. McCourt, 2004, Caesarean section: perceived demand, British Journal of Midwifery, 12, 412, 10.12968/bjom.2004.12.7.13312 · DOI
  44. McCourt, 2007, Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature, Birth, 34, 65, 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00147.x · DOI
  45. Minkoff, 2003, Elective primary cesarean delivery, New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 946, 10.1056/NEJMsb022734 · DOI
  46. The National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Childrens Health, April 2004, Caesarean Section Clinical Guideline
  47. Neilson, 2003, Interventions for suspected placenta praevia, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10.1002/14651858.CD001998 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Paterson-Brown, 1997, Caesarean section: every woman's right to choose?, Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 9, 351, 10.1097/00001703-199712000-00003 · DOI
  49. Paterson-Brown, 1998, Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Yes, as long as the woman is fully informed, BMJ, 317, 462, 10.1136/bmj.317.7156.462 · DOI
  50. Penna, 2003, Cesarean section for non-medical reasons, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 82, 399, 10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00217-0 · DOI
  51. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) 2011
  52. Rortveit, 2003, Urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean section, New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 900, 10.1056/NEJMoa021788 · DOI
  53. Ryding, 1993, Investigation of 33 women who demanded caesarean section for personal reasons, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 72, 280, 10.3109/00016349309068038 · DOI
  54. Serena, 2005, Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 192, 1458, 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.074 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Smith, 1997, Fetal laceration injury at cesarean delivery, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 90, 344, 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00284-6 · DOI
  56. Sreevidya, 2003, High caesarean rates in Madras (India): a population-based cross-sectional study, BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 110, 106
  57. Sultan, 1993, Anal sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery, New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1905, 10.1056/NEJM199312233292601 · DOI
  58. Sultan, 1994, Third degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: risk factors and outcome of primary repair, BMJ, 308, 887, 10.1136/bmj.308.6933.887 · DOI
  59. Sultan, 1996, Preserving the pelvic floor and perineum during childbirth - elective caesarean section?, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 103, 731, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09864.x · DOI
  60. Sultan, 1997, Anal and urinary incontinence in women with obstetric anal sphincter rupture, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 104, 754, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11998.x · DOI
  61. Thomas, 2001, The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report
  62. Tierney, 2005, Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis, International Journal of Epidemiology, 34, 79, 10.1093/ije/dyh300 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Treffers, 1993, The rising trend for caesarean birth, BMJ, 307, 1017, 10.1136/bmj.307.6911.1017 · DOI
  64. Turnbull, 1999, Women's role and satisfaction in the decision to have a caesarean section, Medical Journal of Australia, 170, 580, 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1999.tb127903.x · DOI
  65. Wagner, 2000, Choosing caesarean section, Lancet, 356, 1677, 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03169-X · DOI
  66. Wen, 2004, Comparison of maternal mortality and morbidity between trial of labour and elective cesarean section among women with previous caesarean delivery, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 191, 1263, 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.022 · DOI
  67. Whyte, 2004, Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned caesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized term breech trial, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 191, 864, 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.056 · DOI
  68. Wolman, 1993, Postpartum depression and companionship in the clinical birth environment: a randomised controlled study, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 168, 1388, 10.1016/S0002-9378(11)90770-4 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lavender, T., Hofmeyr, G. J., Neilson, J. P., Kingdon, C., & Gyte, G. M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Manchester; School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work; Oxford Road Manchester UK M13 9PL
  • University of the Witwatersrand, University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape Department of Health; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, East London Hospital Complex; Frere and Cecilia Makiwane Hospitals Private Bag X 9047 East London Eastern Cape South Africa 5200
  • The University of Liverpool; Department of Women's and Children's Health; First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust Crown Street Liverpool UK L8 7SS
  • University of Central Lancashire; School of Health; Brook Building Preston UK PR 1 2 HE
  • The University of Liverpool; Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health; First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust Crown Street Liverpool UK L8 7SS
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-14
Volume
2012
Issue
3
ISSN
1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd004660.pub3
PMC
PMC4171389
Cited by
78
References
4
Language
en

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