Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 344

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

Maternal Outcomes Associated With Planned Primary Cesarean Births Compared With Planned Vaginal Births

Declercq, Eugene, Barger, Mary, Cabral, Howard J., Evans, Stephen R., Kotelchuck, Milton, Simon, Carol, Weiss, Judith, Heffner, Linda J.·2007·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes and costs associated with primary cesarean births with no labor (planned cesareans) to vaginal and cesarean births with labor (planned vaginal). METHODS: Analysis was based on a Massachusetts data system linking 470,857 birth certificates, fetal death records, and birth-related hospital discharge records from 1998 and 2003. We examined a subset of 244,088 mothers with no prior cesarean and no documented prenatal risk. We then divided mothers into two groups: those with no labor and a primary cesarean (planned primary cesarean deliveries-3,334 women) and those with labor and either a vaginal birth or a cesarean delivery (planned vaginal-240,754 women). We compared maternal rehospitalization rates and analyzed costs and length of stay. RESULTS: Rehospitalizations in the first 30 days after giving birth were more likely in planned cesarean (19.2 in 1,000) when compared with planned vaginal births (7.5 in 1,000). After controlling for age, parity, and race or ethnicity, mothers with a planned primary cesarean were 2.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.74-2.9) times more likely to require a rehospitalization in the first 30 days postpartum. The leading causes of rehospitalization after a planned cesarean were wound complications (6.6 in 1,000) (P<.001) and infection (3.3 in 1,000). The average initial hospital cost of a planned primary cesarean of US dollars 4,372 (95% C.I. US dollars 4,293-4,451) was 76% higher than the average for planned vaginal births of US dollars 2,487 (95% C.I. US dollars 2,481-2,493), and length of stay was 77% longer (4.3 days to 2.4 days). CONCLUSION: Clinicians should be aware of the increased risk for maternal rehospitalization after cesarean deliveries to low-risk mothers when counseling women about their choices. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

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 · 10.1097/01.aog.0000255668.20639.40

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 344

Metadata

Authors
Declercq, E., Barger, M., Cabral, H. J., Evans, S. R., Kotelchuck, M., Simon, C., Weiss, J., & Heffner, L. J.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2007-03
Volume
109
Issue
3
Pages
669-677
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984924640
Cited by
344
References
1
FWCI
13.99
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: Maternal Outcomes Associated With Planned Primary Cesarean Births Compared With Planned Vaginal Births. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.aog.0000255668.20639.40
The paper
Declercq, E., Barger, M., Cabral, H. J., Evans, S. R., Kotelchuck, M., Simon, C., Weiss, J., & Heffner, L. J. (2007). Maternal Outcomes Associated With Planned Primary Cesarean Births Compared With Planned Vaginal Births. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000255668.20639.40

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.