Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 402

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

Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population‐based ecological study with longitudinal data

Open access
Ye, J, Zhang, J, Mikolajczyk, R, Torloni, MR, Gülmezoglu, AM, Betran, AP·2016·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective: Caesarean section was initially performed to save the lives of the mother and/or her baby. Caesarean section rates have risen substantially worldwide over the past decades. In this study, we set out to compile all available caesarean section rates worldwide at the country level, and to identify the appropriate caesarean section rate at the population level associated with the minimal maternal and neonatal mortality. Design: Ecological study using longitudinal data. Setting: Worldwide country‐level data. Population: A total of 159 countries were included in the analyses, representing 98.0% of global live births (2005). Methods: Nationally representative caesarean section rates from 2000 to 2012 were compiled. We assessed the relationship between caesarean section rates and mortality outcomes, adjusting for socio‐economic development by means of human development index (HDI) using fractional polynomial regression models. Main outcome measures: Maternal mortality ratio and neonatal mortality rate. Results: Most countries have experienced increases in caesarean section rate during the study period. In the unadjusted analysis, there was a negative association between caesarean section rates and mortality outcomes for low caesarean section rates, especially among the least developed countries. After adjusting for HDI, this effect was much smaller and was only observed below a caesarean section rate of 5–10%. No important association between the caesarean section rate and maternal and neonatal mortality was observed when the caesarean section rate exceeded 10%. Conclusions: Although caesarean section is an effective intervention to save maternal and infant lives, based on the available ecological evidence, caesarean section rates higher than around 10% at the population level are not associated with decreases in maternal and neonatal mortality rates, and thus may not be necessary to achieve the lowest maternal and neonatal mortality. Tweetable abstract: The caesarean section rate of around 10% may be the optimal rate to achieve the lowest mortality.

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 · 10.1111/1471-0528.13592

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 402

Metadata

Authors
Ye, J., Zhang, J., Mikolajczyk, R., Torloni, M., Gülmezoglu, A., & Betran, A.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-08-24
Volume
123
Issue
5
Pages
745-753
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W1558039703
Cited by
402
References
3
FWCI
26.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population‐based ecological study with longitudinal data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1471-0528.13592
The paper
Ye, J., Zhang, J., Mikolajczyk, R., Torloni, M., Gülmezoglu, A., & Betran, A. (2016). Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population‐based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13592

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.