The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study Commentary: all women should have a choice Commentary: increase in caesarean sections may reflect medical control not women's choice Commentary: "health has become secondary to a sexually attractive body"
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Objectives: To estimate the incidences of caesarean sections in Latin American countries and correlate these with socioeconomic, demographic, and healthcare variables. Design: Descriptive and ecological study. Setting: 19 Latin American countries. Main outcome measures: National estimates of caesarean section rates in each country. Results: Seven countries had caesarean section rates below 15%. The remaining 12 countries had rates above 15% (range 16.8% to 40.0%). These 12 countries account for 81% of the deliveries in the region. A positive and significant correlation was observed between the gross national product per capita and rate of caesarean section (rs=0.746), and higher rates were observed in private hospitals than in public ones. Taking 15% as a medically justified accepted rate, over 850 000 unnecessary caesarean sections are performed each year in the region. Conclusions: The reported figures represent an unnecessary increased risk for young women and their babies. From the economic perspective, this is a burden to health systems that work with limited budgets. Key messages 12 of the 19 Latin American countries studied had caesarean section rates above 15%, ranging from 16.8% to 40% These12 countries account for 81% of the deliveries in the region Better socioeconomic conditions were associated with higher caesarean section rates Over 850 000 unnecessary caesarean sections are performed each year in Latin America Reduction of caesarean section rates will need concerted action from public health authorities, medical associations, medical schools, health professionals, the general population, and the media
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
Cited by
Renfrew, M. J., McFadden, A., Bastos, M. H., Campbell, J., Channon, A. A., Cheung, N. F., Silva, D. R. A. D., Downe, S., Kennedy, H. P., Malata, A., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60789-3 · Cited by 1,297
Classification of caesarean sections
Robson, M. (2001) · Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review · doi:10.1017/s0965539501000122 · Cited by 601
Violence against women in health-care institutions: an emerging problem
d'Oliveira, A. F. P. L., Diniz, S. G., & Schraiber, L. B. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08592-6 · Cited by 382
Indications for and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section
Mylonas, I., & Friese, K. (2015) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2015.0489 · Cited by 359
Mazzoni, A., Althabe, F., Liu, N., Bonotti, A., Gibbons, L., Sánchez, A., & Belizán, J. (2011) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02793.x · Cited by 306
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Belizan, J. M., Althabe, F., Barros, F. C., Alexander, S., Showalter, E., Griffin, A., Castro, A., & Bastian, H.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1999-11-27
- Volume
- 319
- Issue
- 7222
- Pages
- 1397-1402
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2126986799
- Cited by
- 414
- References
- 0
- 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: Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study Commentary: all women should have a choice Commentary: increase in caesarean sections may reflect medical control not women's choice Commentary: "health has become secondary to a sexually attractive body". https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.319.7222.1397
- The paper
- Belizan, J. M., Althabe, F., Barros, F. C., Alexander, S., Showalter, E., Griffin, A., Castro, A., & Bastian, H. (1999). Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study Commentary: all women should have a choice Commentary: increase in caesarean sections may reflect medical control not women's choice Commentary: "health has become secondary to a sexually attractive body". BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7222.1397
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.