The benefits and risks of inducing labour in patients with prior caesarean delivery: a systematic review
Version of Record online: 23 FEB 2005
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 112, Issue 8, pages 1007–1015, August 2005
How to Cite
McDonagh, M. S., Osterweil, P. and Guise, J.-M. (2005), The benefits and risks of inducing labour in patients with prior caesarean delivery: a systematic review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 112: 1007–1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00623.x
- Issue online: 7 JUN 2005
- Version of Record online: 23 FEB 2005
- 2National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. London: RCOG Press, 2001., .
- 3Births: preliminary data for 1999. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2000;48(14):1–20., .
- 4Anonymous. Health Canada. Health Services Cesarean Section Rate. Canadian Perinatal Report 2000. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2000: 19–33.
- 7Anonymous. Induction of Labour. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit, 2001: 1–78.
- 8Anonymous. ACOG Committee Opinion. Induction of Labor for Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2002: 679–680.
- 9Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC). Evidence Report/Technology Assessment (Prepared by the Oregon Health & Science University Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0018). Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publication, 2003., , , et al.
- 11Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research Effectiveness: CRD's Guidance for Those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. CRD Report Number 4, 2nd edition. York, England: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001.
- 12Anonymous. Use of hospital discharge data to monitor uterine rupture—Massachusetts 1990–1997. Morb Mort Wkly Report 2000;49: 245–258.
- 14Best-evidence synthesis: an alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educ Res 1986;15: 5–11..