The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12 944 women in England
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“but an increased odds among women who mostly sat, undertook demanding tasks, worked during pregnancy and worked more than 50 hours (online supplemental appendix S11, table v).98”
From Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“but an increased odds among women who mostly sat, undertook demanding tasks, worked during pregnancy and worked more than 50 hours (online supplemental appendix S11, table v).98”
From Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“and among women who bent or stood a lot and physically exerted themselves at work98”
From Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“but an increased odds among women who mostly sat, undertook demanding tasks, worked during pregnancy and worked more than 50 hours (online supplemental appendix S11, table v).98”
From Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
In the citing paper
“but an increased odds among women who mostly sat, undertook demanding tasks, worked during pregnancy and worked more than 50 hours (online supplemental appendix S11, table v).98”
From Socioeconomic inequalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK and Republic of Ireland: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
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
Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy
Smith, G. C., Pell, J. P., & Bobbie, R. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14896-9 · Cited by 378
Vaginal birth after Caesarean section: an Australian multicentre study
Appleton, B., Targett, C., Rasmussen, M., Readman, E., Sale, F., Permezel, M., & the VBAC Study Group (2000) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1479-828x.2000.tb03175.x · Cited by 53
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Walker R, Turnbull D, Wilkinson C. Strategies to Address Global Cesarean Section Rates: A review of the evidence. Birth2002;29:28–39. · DOI
- Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet2000;356:1375–83. · DOI · Paper page
- Thomas J, Paranjothy S. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit, RCOG Press, 2001.
- Gareen IF, Morgenstern H, Greenland S, Spelliscy Gifford D. Explaining the association of maternal age with cesarean delivery for nulliparous and parous women. J Clin Epidemiol2003;56:1100–10. · DOI
- Golding J, Pembrey M, Jones R, ALSPAC Study Team. ALSPAC—the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. I. Study methodology. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol2001;15:74–87. · DOI · Paper page
- Kiely JL. Some conceptual problems in multivariable analyses of perinatal mortality. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol1991;5:243–57. · DOI
- Roberts CL, Algert CS, Carnegie M, Peat B. Operative delivery during labour: trends and predictive factors. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol2002;16:115–23. · DOI
- Jonas O, Roder D, Chan A. The association of maternal and socioeconomic characteristics in metropolitan Adelaide with medical, obstetric and labour complications and pregnancy outcomes. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol1992;32:1–5. · DOI
- Hung S, Morrison DR, Whittington LA, Fein SB. Prepartum work, job characteristics, and risk of cesarean delivery. Birth2002;29:10–17. · DOI
- Bungum T, Peaslee DL, Jackson AW, Perez MA. Exercise during pregnancy and type of delivery in nulliparae. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs2000;29:258–64. · DOI
- Rageth JC, Juzi C, Grossenbacher H. Delivery after previous cesarean: a risk evaluation. Swiss Working Group of Obstetric and Gynecologic Institutions. Obstet Gynecol1999;93:332–37. · DOI
- Verlaenen H, Cammu H, Derde MP, Amy JJ. Singleton pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: expectations and outcome. Obstet Gynecol1995;86:906–10. · DOI
- Brost BC, Goldenberg RL, Mercer BM et al. The Preterm Prediction Study: association of cesarean delivery with increases in maternal weight and body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol1997;177:333–37. · DOI
- Prysak M, Castronova FC. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol1998;92:47–52. · DOI
- Oral E, Cada A, Gezer A, Kaleli S, Aydinli K, Öçer F. Perinatal and maternal outcomes of fetal macrosomia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol2001;99:167–71. · DOI
- Poma PA. Correlation of birth weights with cesarean rates. Int J Gynaecol Obstet1999;65:117–23. · DOI
- Jensen DM, Sorensen B, Feilberg-Jorgensen N, Westergaard JG, Beck-Nielsen H. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in 143 Danish women with gestational diabetes mellitus and 143 controls with a similar risk profile. Diabet Med2000;17:281–86. · DOI
- Gofton EN, Capewell V, Natale R, Gratton RJ. Obstetrical intervention rates and maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with gestational hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol2001;185:798–803. · DOI
- Rey E, Couturier A. The prognosis of pregnancy in women with chronic hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol1994;171:410–16. · DOI
- Segal S, Su M, Gilbert P. The effect of a rapid change in availability of epidural analgesia on the cesarean delivery rate: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol2000;183:974–78. · DOI
- Halpern SH, Leighton BL, Ohlsson A, Barrett JF, Rice A. Effect of epidural vs parenteral opioid analgesia on the progress of labor: a meta-analysis. JAMA1998;280:2105–10. · DOI
- Traynor JD, Dooley SL, Seyb S, Wong CA, Shadron A. Is the management of epidural analgesia associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol2000;182:1058–62. · DOI
- Rogers R, Gilson G, Kammerer-Doak D. Epidural analgesia and active management of labor: effects on length of labor and mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol1999;93:995–98. · DOI
- Albers LL, Anderson D, Cragin L et al. The relationship of ambulation in labor to operative delivery. J Nurse Midwifery1997;42:4–8. · DOI
- Bloom SL, McIntire DD, Kelly MA et al. Lack of effect of walking on labor and delivery. N Engl J Med1998;339:76–79. · DOI
- Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol2001;15:179–94. · DOI
Cited by
Wren, Y., Miller, L. L., Peters, T. J., Emond, A., & Roulstone, S. (2016) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2015_jslhr-s-14-0282 · Cited by 198
Self-citationThomson, K., Moffat, M., Arisa, O., Jesurasa, A., Richmond, C., Odeniyi, A., Bambra, C., Rankin, J., Brown, H., Bishop, J., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042753 · Cited by 154
O’Leary, C., De Klerk, N., Keogh, J., Pennell, C., De Groot, J., York, L., Mulroy, S., & Stanley, F. (2007) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01307.x · Cited by 118
Elnakib, S., Abdel-Tawab, N., Orbay, D., & Hassanein, N. (2019) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-019-2558-2 · Cited by 84
Metadata
- Authors
- Patel, R. R., Peters, T. J., & Murphy, D. J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-01-19
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 353-367
- ISSN
- 1464-3685
- 0300-5771
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 2
- 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
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.
