Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,037

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys

Open access
Vogel, Joshua P, Betrán, Ana Pilar, Vindevoghel, Nadia, Souza, João Paulo, Torloni, Maria Regina, Zhang, Jun, Tunçalp, Özge, Mori, Rintaro, Morisaki, Naho, Ortiz-Panozo, Eduardo, Hernandez, Bernardo, Pérez-Cuevas, Ricardo, Qureshi, Zahida, Gülmezoglu, A Metin, Temmerman, Marleen·2015·The Lancet Global Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rates of caesarean section surgery are rising worldwide, but the determinants of this increase, especially in low-income and middle-income countries, are controversial. In this study, we aimed to analyse the contribution of specific obstetric populations to changes in caesarean section rates, by using the Robson classification in two WHO multicountry surveys of deliveries in health-care facilities. The Robson system classifies all deliveries into one of ten groups on the basis of five parameters: obstetric history, onset of labour, fetal lie, number of neonates, and gestational age. METHODS: We studied deliveries in 287 facilities in 21 countries that were included in both the WHO Global Survey of Maternal and Perinatal Health (WHOGS; 2004-08) and the WHO Multi-Country Survey of Maternal and Newborn Health (WHOMCS; 2010-11). We used the data from these surveys to establish the average annual percentage change (AAPC) in caesarean section rates per country. Countries were stratified according to Human Development Index (HDI) group (very high/high, medium, or low) and the Robson criteria were applied to both datasets. We report the relative size of each Robson group, the caesarean section rate in each Robson group, and the absolute and relative contributions made by each to the overall caesarean section rate. FINDINGS: The caesarean section rate increased overall between the two surveys (from 26.4% in the WHOGS to 31.2% in the WHOMCS, p=0.003) and in all countries except Japan. Use of obstetric interventions (induction, prelabour caesarean section, and overall caesarean section) increased over time. Caesarean section rates increased across most Robson groups in all HDI categories. Use of induction and prelabour caesarean section increased in very high/high and low HDI countries, and the caesarean section rate after induction in multiparous women increased significantly across all HDI groups. The proportion of women who had previously had a caesarean section increased in moderate and low HDI countries, as did the caesarean section rate in these women. INTERPRETATION: Use of the Robson criteria allows standardised comparisons of data across countries and timepoints and identifies the subpopulations driving changes in caesarean section rates. Women who have previously had a caesarean section are an increasingly important determinant of overall caesarean section rates in countries with a moderate or low HDI. Strategies to reduce the frequency of the procedure should include avoidance of medically unnecessary primary caesarean section. Improved case selection for induction and prelabour caesarean section could also reduce caesarean section rates. FUNDING: None.

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/s2214-109x(15)70094-x

Cites

2 of 2 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

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

Cited by

See all 1,037

Metadata

Authors
Vogel, J. P., Betrán, A. P., Vindevoghel, N., Souza, J. P., Torloni, M. R., Zhang, J., Tunçalp, Ö., Mori, R., Morisaki, N., Ortiz-Panozo, E., Hernandez, B., Pérez-Cuevas, R., Qureshi, Z., Gülmezoglu, A. M., & Temmerman, M.
Venue
The Lancet Global Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
e260-e270
ISSN
2214-109X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096978226
Cited by
1,037
References
2
FWCI
49.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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.