SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;2:4367.
  • 2
    Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-Shun W, Thomas J, Van LP, et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:98113.
  • 3
    Cyr RM. Myth of the ideal cesarean section rate: commentary and historic perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:9326.
  • 4
    De Brouwere V, Dubourg D, Richard F, Van LW. Need for caesarean sections in west Africa. Lancet 2002;359:9745.
  • 5
    Dumont A, de Bernis L, Bouvier-Colle MH, Breart G. Caesarean section rate for maternal indication in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review. Lancet 2001;358:132833.
  • 6
    Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006;33:2707.
  • 7
    Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999;319:1397400.
  • 8
    Belizan JM, Cafferata ML, Althabe F, Buekens P. Risks of patient choice cesarean. Birth 2006;33:1679.
  • 9
    Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–08. Lancet 2010;375:4909.
  • 10
    Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006;367:181929.
  • 11
    Fuglenes D, Oian P, Kristiansen IS. Obstetricians’ choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:48.
  • 12
    Kalish RB, McCullough L, Gupta M, Thaler HT, Chervenak FA. Intrapartum elective cesarean delivery: a previously unrecognized clinical entity. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:113741.
  • 13
    Usha Kiran TS, Jayawickrama NS. Who is responsible for the rising caesarean section rate? J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22:3635.
  • 14
    Handfield B, Turnbull S, Bell RJ. What do obstetricians think about media influences on their patients? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46:37983.
  • 15
    Moyer CA, Vishnu LO, Sonnad SS. Providing health information to women. The role of magazines. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2001;17:13745.
  • 16
    Torloni MR, Daher S, Betran AP, Widmer M, Montilla P, Souza JP, et al. Portrayal of caesarean section in Brazilian women's magazines: 20 year review. BMJ 2011;342:d276.
  • 17
    WHO Regional Office for Europe. European Health for All Database (HFA-DB). August 31, 2012 [www euro who int/en/what-we-do/data-and-evidence/databases/european-health-for-all-database-hfa-db2]. Accessed 21 November 2012.
  • 18
    Oficina de Justificación de la Difusión. Información y Control de Publicaciones. 2011 [www ojd es/OJD/Portal/home_ojd/_ZmEG1s9_YAY8wV_g7wLJFQ]. Accessed 5 January 2010.
  • 19
    Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Keller J. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:9871001.
  • 20
    NIH State-of-the Science Conference Statement on Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. Report No. March 27–29; 23(1). AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse; 2006 [http://consensus.nih.gov/2006/cesarean.htm]. Accessed 1 September 2012.
  • 21
    ACOG Committee Opinion No. 394, December 2007. Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:1501.
  • 22
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Cesarean Delivery Rates. Evaluation of cesarean delivery. Washington DC: ACOG; 2000.
  • 23
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Caesarean section; Clinical Guideline 13. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, 2004 [www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/NEBCSSummaryOfGuideline.pdf]. Accessed 1 September 2012.
  • 24
    Munro S, Kornelsen J, Hutton E. Decision making in patient-initiated elective cesarean delivery: the influence of birth stories. J Midwifery Womens Health 2009;54:3739.
  • 25
    Hoffman-Goetz L, MacDonald M. Cancer coverage in mass-circulating Canadian women's magazines. Can J Public Health 1999;90:559.
  • 26
    Hotham NJ. Information on drugs and environmental influences in pregnancy in popular magazines: a critical review. Med J Aust 1995;162:41720.
  • 27
    Ingram RE, Busch W, Christianson-Strom C, Fagerstrom C, Hale M, Himes P, et al. What our patients are reading about reproductizrve technologies. A review of eight popular women's magazines, 1978 and 1988. Birth Defects Orig Artic Ser 1990;26:1058.
  • 28
    Kirkman A. Productive readings: the portrayal of health “experts” in women's magazines. Qual Health Res 2001;11:75165.
  • 29
    Lete I, Lopez-Iglesias J, Duenas A, Rodriguez M, Bermejo R, Coll C, et al. Contraception in the Spanish press: an analysis of the 1997–2002 period. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2006;11:1126.
  • 30
    Hillert A, Sandmann J, Ehmig SC, Sobota K, Weisbecker W, Kepplinger HM, et al. Psychopharmacological drugs as represented in the press: results of systematic analysis of newspapers and popular magazines. Pharmacopsychiatry 1996;29:6771.