Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections

Boerma, Ties, Ronsmans, Carine, Melesse, Dessalegn Y, Barros, Aluisio J D, Barros, Fernando C, Juan, Liang, Moller, Ann-Beth, Say, Lale, Hosseinpoor, Ahmad Reza, Yi, Mu, de Lyra Rabello Neto, Dácio, Temmerman, Marleen·2018·The Lancet
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this Series paper, we describe the frequency of, trends in, determinants of, and inequalities in caesarean section (CS) use, globally, regionally, and in selected countries. On the basis of data from 169 countries that include 98·4% of the world's births, we estimate that 29·7 million (21·1%, 95% uncertainty interval 19·9-22·4) births occurred through CS in 2015, which was almost double the number of births by this method in 2000 (16·0 million [12·1%, 10·9-13·3] births). CS use in 2015 was up to ten times more frequent in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where it was used in 44·3% (41·3-47·4) of births, than in the west and central Africa region, where it was used in 4·1% (3·6-4·6) of births. The global and regional increases in CS use were driven both by an increasing proportion of births occurring in health facilities (accounting for 66·5% of the global increase) and increases in CS use within health facilities (33·5%), with considerable variation between regions. Based on the most recent data available for each country, 15% of births in 106 (63%) of 169 countries were by CS, whereas 47 (28%) countries showed CS use in less than 10% of births. National CS use varied from 0·6% in South Sudan to 58·1% in the Dominican Republic. Within-country disparities in CS use were also very large: CS use was almost five times more frequent in births in the richest versus the poorest quintiles in low-income and middle-income countries; markedly high CS use was observed among low obstetric risk births, especially among more educated women in, for example, Brazil and China; and CS use was 1·6 times more frequent in private facilities than in public facilities.

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 · 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Betran, 2015, What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies, Reprod Health, 12, 57, 10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Ye, 2014, Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery, Birth, 41, 237, 10.1111/birt.12104 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Betrán, 2016, The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014, PLoS One, 11, e0148343, 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 · DOI
  4. Molina, 2015, Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality, JAMA, 314, 2263, 10.1001/jama.2015.15553 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Betrán, 2016, WHO statement on caesarean section rates, BJOG, 123, 667, 10.1111/1471-0528.13526 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Boatin, 2018, Within country inequalities in caesarean section rates: observational study of 72 low and middle income countries, BMJ, 360, k55, 10.1136/bmj.k55 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Sandall, 2018, Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children, Lancet, 392, 1349, 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Betrán, 2018, Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies, Lancet, 392, 1358, 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31927-5 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Robson, 2013, Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate, Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol, 27, 297, 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.004 · DOI
  10. Dahlen, 2012, Rates of obstetric intervention among low-risk women giving birth in private and public hospitals in NSW: a population-based descriptive study, BMJ Open, 2, e001723, 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001723 · DOI
  11. Einarsdóttir, 2013, Role of public and private funding in the rising caesarean section rate: a cohort study, BMJ Open, 3, e002789, 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002789 · DOI
  12. Barros, 2011, Patterns of deliveries in a Brazilian birth cohort: almost universal cesarean sections for the better-off, Rev Saude Publica, 45, 635, 10.1590/S0034-89102011005000039 · DOI
  13. Hoxha, 2017, Caesarean sections and for-profit status of hospitals: systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ Open, 7, e013670, 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013670 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Vogel, 2015, Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys, Lancet Glob Health, 3, e260, 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70094-X · DOI · Paper page
  15. Liang, 2018, Relaxation of the one child policy and trends in caesarean section rates and birth outcomes in China between 2012 and 2016: observational study of nearly seven million health facility births, BMJ, 360, k817, 10.1136/bmj.k817 · DOI
  16. Osterman, 2014, Trends in low-risk cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990–2013, Natl Vital Stat Reports, 63, 1
  17. Martin, 2014, Births in the United States, 2013, NCHS Data Brief, 175, 1
  18. Stanton, 2005, Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries, Bull World Health Organ, 83, 449
  19. Tunçalp, 2013, Measuring coverage in MNCH: validating women's self-report of emergency cesarean sections in Ghana and the Dominican Republic, PLoS One, 8, e60761, 10.1371/journal.pone.0060761 · DOI
  20. Guo, 2013, Measuring coverage in MNCH: A validation study linking population survey derived coverage to maternal, newborn, and child health care records in rural China, PLoS One, 8, e60762, 10.1371/journal.pone.0060762 · DOI
  21. Belizán, 2018, An approach to identify a minimum and rational proportion of caesarean sections in resource-poor settings: a global network study, Lancet Glob Health, 6, e894, 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30241-9 · DOI
  22. Betrán, 2014, A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it, PLoS One, 9, e97769, 10.1371/journal.pone.0097769 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Boerma, T., Ronsmans, C., Melesse, D. Y., Barros, A. J. D., Barros, F. C., Juan, L., Moller, A.-B., Say, L., Hosseinpoor, A. R., Yi, M., de Lyra Rabello Neto, D., & Temmerman, M.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
392
Issue
10155
Pages
1341-1348
ISSN
0140-6736
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7
Cited by
1,267
References
1
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

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

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.