The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture
Open accessAbstract
Objective To determine the prevalence of uterine rupture worldwide. Design Systematic review of all available data since 1990. Setting Community‐based and facility‐based reports from urban and rural studies worldwide. Sample Eighty‐three reports of uterine rupture rates are included in the systematic review. Most are facility based using cross‐sectional study designs. Methods Following a pre‐defined protocol an extensive search was conducted of 10 electronic databases as well as other sources. Articles were evaluated according to specified inclusion criteria. Uterine rupture data were collected along with information on the quality of reporting including definitions and identification of cases. Data were entered into a database and tabulated using SAS software. Main outcome measures Prevalence of uterine rupture by country, period, study design, setting, participants, facility type and data source. Results Prevalence figures for uterine rupture were available for 86 groups of women. For unselected pregnant women, the prevalence of uterine rupture reported was considerably lower for community‐based (median 0.053, range 0.016–0.30%) than for facility‐based studies (0.31, 0.012–2.9%). The prevalence tended to be lower for countries defined by the United Nations as developed than the less or least developed countries. For women with previous caesarean section, the prevalence of uterine rupture reported was in the region of 1%. Only one report gave a prevalence for women without previous caesarean section, from a developed country, and this was extremely low (0.006%). Conclusion In less and least developed countries, uterine rupture is more prevalent than in developed countries. In developed countries most uterine ruptures follow caesarean section. Future research on the prevalence of uterine rupture should differentiate between uterine rupture with and without previous caesarean section.
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.
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
Risk of Uterine Rupture during Labor among Women with a Prior Cesarean Delivery
Lydon-Rochelle, M., Holt, V. L., Easterling, T. R., & Martin, D. P. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200107053450101 · Cited by 932
Waterstone, M., Murphy, J. D., Bewley, S., & Wolfe, C. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1089 · Cited by 552
Guise, J.-M., McDonagh, M. S., Osterweil, P., Nygren, P., Chan, B. K. S., & Helfand, M. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.19 · Cited by 307
Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture
Shipp, T. (2001) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01129-7 · Cited by 263
Wen, S. W., Rusen, I. D., Walker, M., Liston, R., Kramer, M. S., Baskett, T., Heaman, M., Liu, S., for the Maternal Health Study Group, & System, C. P. S. (2004) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.022 · Cited by 199
Neilson, J., Lavender, T., Quenby, S., & Wray, S. (2003) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/ldg018 · Cited by 198
Cuervo, L. G., & Aronson, J. K. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.1 · Cited by 151
Zelop, C. M., SHIPP, T. D., Repke, J. T., Cohen, A., & Lieberman, E. (2000) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1067/mob.2000.109048 · Cited by 146
A 10-year population-based study of uterine rupture
Kieser, K. E. (2002) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02161-0 · Cited by 140
WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: methodological issues and challenges
Gülmezoglu, A. M., Say, L., Betrán, A. P., Villar, J., & Piaggio, G. (2004) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-16 · Cited by 105
Self-citation
Cited by
Obstetric care in low-resource settings: what, who, and how to overcome challenges to scale up?
Hofmeyr, G. J., Haws, R. A., Bergström, S., Lee, A. C., Okong, P., Darmstadt, G. L., Mullany, L. C., Oo, E. K. S., & Lawn, J. E. (2009) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.017 · Cited by 224
Self-citationLevels and Causes of Maternal Mortality and Morbidity
Filippi, V., Chou, D., Ronsmans, C., Graham, W., & Say, L. (2016) · Disease Control Priorities, Third Edition (Volume 2): Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health · doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0348-2_ch3 · Cited by 166
Self-citationPatterns and causes of hospital maternal mortality in Tanzania: a 10-year retrospective analysis
Bwana, V. M., Rumisha, S. F., Mremi, I. R., Lyimo, E. P., & Mboera, L. E. G. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0214807 · Cited by 97
Metadata
- Authors
- Justus Hofmeyr, G., Say, L., & Metin Gülmezoglu, A.
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-07-24
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1221-1228
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W1709342541
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 0.73
- 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: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00725.x
- The paper
- Justus Hofmeyr, G., Say, L., & Metin Gülmezoglu, A. (2005). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00725.x
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.