Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk‐stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro‐Peristat study

Open access
Macfarlane, AJ, Blondel, B, Mohangoo, AD, Cuttini, M, Nijhuis, J, Novak, Z, Ólafsdóttir, HS, Zeitlin, J, the Euro‐Peristat Scientific Committee·2016·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective: To use data from routine sources to compare rates of obstetric intervention in Europe both overall and for subgroups at higher risk of intervention. Design: Retrospective analysis of aggregated routine data. Setting: Thirty‐one European countries or regions contributing data on mode of delivery to the Euro‐Peristat project. Population: Births in participating countries in 2010. Methods: Countries provided aggregated data about overall rates of obstetric intervention and about caesarean section rates for specified subgroups. Main outcome measures: Mode of delivery. Results: Rates of caesarean section ranged from 14.8% to 52.2% of all births and rates of instrumental vaginal delivery ranged from 0.5% to 16.4%. Overall, there was no association between rates of instrumental vaginal delivery and rates of caesarean section, but similarities were observed between some countries that are geographically close and may share common traditions of practice. Associations were observed between caesarean section rates for women with breech and vertex births and with singleton and multiple births but patterns of association for women who had and had not had previous caesarean sections were more complex. Conclusions: The persisting wide variations in caesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery rates point to a lack of consensus about practice and raise questions for further investigation. Further research is needed to explore the impact of differences in clinical guidelines, healthcare systems and their financing and parents’ and professionals’ attitudes to care at delivery.

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 · 10.1111/1471-0528.13284

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Macfarlane, A., Blondel, B., Mohangoo, A., Cuttini, M., Nijhuis, J., Novak, Z., Ólafsdóttir, H., Zeitlin, J., & the Euro‐Peristat Scientific Committee
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03-09
Volume
123
Issue
4
Pages
559-568
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2126417214
Cited by
257
References
3
FWCI
27.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk‐stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro‐Peristat study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1471-0528.13284
The paper
Macfarlane, A., Blondel, B., Mohangoo, A., Cuttini, M., Nijhuis, J., Novak, Z., Ólafsdóttir, H., Zeitlin, J., & the Euro‐Peristat Scientific Committee. (2016). Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk‐stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro‐Peristat study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13284

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.