The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evidence‐Based Strategies for Reducing Cesarean Section Rates: A Meta‐Analysis
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Background: Canada’s cesarean section rate reached an all‐time high of 22.5 percent of in‐hospital deliveries in 2002 and was associated with potential maternal and neonatal complications. Clinical practice guidelines represent an appropriate mean for reducing cesarean section rates. The challenge now lies in implementing these guidelines. Objectives of this meta‐analysis were to assess the effectiveness of interventions for reducing the cesarean section rate and to assess the impact of this reduction on maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Methods: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were consulted from January 1990 to June 2005. Additional studies were identified by screening reference lists from identified studies and expert suggestions. Studies involving rigorous evaluation of a strategy for reducing overall cesarean section rates were identified. Randomized controlled trials, controlled before‐and‐after studies, and interrupted time series studies were evaluated according to Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group criteria. Results: Among the 10 included studies, a significant reduction of cesarean section rate was found by random meta‐analysis (pooled RR = 0.81 [0.75, 0.87]). No evidence of publication bias was identified. Audit and feedback (pooled RR = 0.87 [0.81, 0.93]), quality improvement (pooled RR = 0.74 [0.70, 0.77]), and multifaceted strategies (pooled RR=0.73 [0.68, 0.79]) were effective for reducing the cesarean section rate. However, quality improvement based on active management of labor showed mixed effects. Design of studies showed a higher effect for noncontrolled studies than for controlled studies (pooled RR = 0.76 [0.72, 0.81] vs 0.92 [0.88, 0.96]). Studies including an identification of barriers to change were more effective than other interventions for reducing the cesarean section rate (pooled RR = 0.74 [0.71, 0.78] vs 0.88 [0.82, 0.94]). Among included studies, no significant differences were found for perinatal and neonatal mortality and perinatal and maternal morbidity with respect to the mode of delivery. Only 1 study showed a significant reduction of neonatal and perinatal mortality (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The cesarean section rate can be safely reduced by interventions that involve health workers in analyzing and modifying their practice. Our results suggest that multifaceted strategies, based on audit and detailed feedback, are advised to improve clinical practice and effectively reduce cesarean section rates. Moreover, these findings support the assumption that identification of barriers to change is a major key to success. (BIRTH 34:1 March 2007)
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
- STATISTICAL PACKAGE FOR SOCIAL SCIENCES
(2014) · Statistical Methods in Psychiatry Research and SPSS · doi:10.1201/b17560-26 · Cited by 12,056
Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies
Grimshaw, J., Thomas, R., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsay, C., Vale, L., Whitty, P., Eccles, M., Matowe, L., Shirran, L., et al. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8060 · Cited by 3,044
Davis, D., O'Brien, M. A. T., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867 · Cited by 2,364
Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery
Landon, M. B., Hauth, J. C., Leveno, K. J., Spong, C. Y., Leindecker, S., Varner, M. W., Moawad, A. H., Caritis, S. N., Harper, M., Wapner, R. J., et al. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040405 · Cited by 1,286
Do Practice Guidelines Guide Practice?
Lomas, J., Anderson, G. M., Domnick-Pierre, K., Vayda, E., Enkin, M. W., & Hannah, W. J. (1989) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198911093211906 · Cited by 1,234
(1997) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 1,226
Ukoumunne, Gulliford, Chinn, Sterne, & Burney (1999) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta3050 · Cited by 1,210
How can we achieve and maintain high-quality performance of health workers in low-resource settings?
Rowe, A. K., de Savigny, D., Lanata, C. F., & Victora, C. G. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67028-6 · Cited by 1,045
Cited by
Non‐clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section
Chen, I., Opiyo, N., Tavender, E., Mortazhejri, S., Rader, T., Petkovic, J., Yogasingam, S., Taljaard, M., Agarwal, S., Laopaiboon, M., et al. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005528.pub3 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Chaillet, N., & Dumont, A.
- Venue
- Birth
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02-26
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-64
- ISSN
- 0730-7659 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-536X
- OpenAlex
- W2083043137
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 62
- FWCI
- 12.24
- 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: Evidence‐Based Strategies for Reducing Cesarean Section Rates: A Meta‐Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-536x.2006.00146.x
- The paper
- Chaillet, N., & Dumont, A. (2007). Evidence‐Based Strategies for Reducing Cesarean Section Rates: A Meta‐Analysis. Birth. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536x.2006.00146.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.