Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 601

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

Classification of caesarean sections

Robson, MS·2001·Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review

Abstract

Caesarean section rates in the United Kingdom continue to be a topic of importance in both the medical and lay press. In previous years most of the discussion has been about what the correct caesarean section rate should be. More recently the debate has focused on whether a woman has the right to choose to have her baby delivered by caesarean section in the absence of a medical indication. This has medical implications, in terms of short and long term complications for the woman, but also carries a financial burden that the National Health Service can ill afford.

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 · 10.1017/s0965539501000122

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

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

Cited by

See all 601

Metadata

Authors
Robson, M.
Venue
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review
Published
2001-01-17
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
23-39
ISSN
  • 0965-5395 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-5065
OpenAlex
W2067694860
Cited by
601
References
1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Classification of caesarean sections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0965539501000122
The paper
Robson, M. (2001). Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0965539501000122

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.