Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial

Open access
Montgomery, Alan A, Emmett, Clare L, Fahey, Tom, Jones, Claire, Ricketts, Ian, Patel, Roshni R, Peters, Tim J, Murphy, Deirdre J·2007·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of two computer based decision aids on decisional conflict and mode of delivery among pregnant women with a previous caesarean section. DESIGN: Randomised trial, conducted from May 2004 to August 2006. SETTING: Four maternity units in south west England, and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 742 pregnant women with one previous lower segment caesarean section and delivery expected at >or=37 weeks. Non-English speakers were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care: standard care given by obstetric and midwifery staff. Information programme: women navigated through descriptions and probabilities of clinical outcomes for mother and baby associated with planned vaginal birth, elective caesarean section, and emergency caesarean section. Decision analysis: mode of delivery was recommended based on utility assessments performed by the woman combined with probabilities of clinical outcomes within a concealed decision tree. Both interventions were delivered via a laptop computer after brief instructions from a researcher. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total score on decisional conflict scale, and mode of delivery. RESULTS: Women in the information programme (adjusted difference -6.2, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -3.7) and the decision analysis (-4.0, -6.5 to -1.5) groups had reduced decisional conflict compared with women in the usual care group. The rate of vaginal birth was higher for women in the decision analysis group compared with the usual care group (37% v 30%, adjusted odds ratio 1.42, 0.94 to 2.14), but the rates were similar in the information programme and usual care groups. CONCLUSIONS: Decision aids can help women who have had a previous caesarean section to decide on mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. The decision analysis approach might substantially affect national rates of caesarean section. Trial Registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84367722.

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.39217.671019.55

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Montgomery, A. A., Emmett, C. L., Fahey, T., Jones, C., Ricketts, I., Patel, R. R., Peters, T. J., & Murphy, D. J.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2007-05-31
Volume
334
Issue
7607
Pages
1305
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2166678231
Cited by
190
References
2
FWCI
25.38
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: Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39217.671019.55
The paper
Montgomery, A. A., Emmett, C. L., Fahey, T., Jones, C., Ricketts, I., Patel, R. R., Peters, T. J., & Murphy, D. J. (2007). Two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with previous caesarean section: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39217.671019.55

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.