Literature DB >> 16738168

National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27-29, 2006.

.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on cesarean delivery on maternal request. PARTICIPANTS: A non-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 18-member panel representing the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, preventive medicine, biometrics, family planning and reproductive physiology, nurse midwifery, anesthesiology, patient safety, epidemiology, pediatrics, perinatal medicine, urology, urogynecology, general nursing, inner-city public health sciences, law, psychiatry, and health services research. In addition, 18 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. EVIDENCE: Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. CONFERENCE PROCESS: The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the National Institutes of Health or the federal government.
CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of cesarean delivery on maternal request is difficult to quantify. There is insufficient evidence to evaluate fully the benefits and risks of cesarean delivery on maternal request compared with planned vaginal delivery. Any decision to perform a cesarean delivery on maternal request should be carefully individualized and consistent with ethical principles.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16738168

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  43 in total

1.  Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term.

Authors:  Shiliang Liu; Robert M Liston; K S Joseph; Maureen Heaman; Reg Sauve; Michael S Kramer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-02-13       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Perinatal death in twins.

Authors:  Philip Steer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-03-17

3.  Primary cesarean deliveries prior to labor in the United States, 1979-2004.

Authors:  Jutta M Joesch; Ginger L Gossman; Koray Tanfer
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2007-07-24

4.  Birthing ethics: what mothers, families, childbirth educators, nurses, and physicians should know about the ethics of childbirth.

Authors:  Jennifer M Torres; Raymond G De Vries
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2009

Review 5.  Elective cesarean section: its impact on neonatal respiratory outcome.

Authors:  Ashwin Ramachandrappa; Lucky Jain
Journal:  Clin Perinatol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.430

6.  Key considerations when comparing outcomes by mode of delivery raise questions about study validity and clinical relevance.

Authors:  Giulia M Muraca; Neda Razaz
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  Quantitative anal sphincter electromyography in primiparous women with anal incontinence.

Authors:  W Thomas Gregory; Jau-Shin Lou; Kimberly Simmons; Amanda L Clark
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Pelvic floor consequences of cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Xiao Xu; Julie S Ivy; Divya A Patel; Sejal N Patel; Dean G Smith; Scott B Ransom; Dee Fenner; John O L Delancey
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Mode of delivery: toward responsible inclusion of patient preferences.

Authors:  Margaret Olivia Little; Anne Drapkin Lyerly; Lisa M Mitchell; Elizabeth M Armstrong; Lisa H Harris; Rebecca Kukla; Miriam Kuppermann
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Developing and pre-testing a decision board to facilitate informed choice about delivery approach in uncomplicated pregnancy.

Authors:  Jill Milne; Amiram Gafni; Diane Lu; Stephen Wood; Reg Sauve; Sue Ross
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 3.007

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.