Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 414

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 access
Belizan, J. M, Althabe, F., Barros, F. C, Alexander, S., Showalter, E., Griffin, A., Castro, A., Bastian, H.·1999·BMJ

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.319.7222.1397

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.

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

Cited by

See all 414

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.