ArticleAmerican journal of public health1983
Controlling the rise in cesarean section rates by the dissemination of information from vital records.
Article in American journal of public health, 1983. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Mind the information gap: fertility rate and use of cesarean delivery and tocolytic hospitalizations in Taiwan.Health economics review · 2011Article
- Risk adjustment in maternity care: the use of indirect standardization.International journal of women's health · 2010Article
- Predictors of cesarean section delivery among college-educated black and white women, Davidson County, Tennessee, 1990-1994.Journal of the National Medical Association · 1999Article
- Analysis, assessment, and presentation of risk-adjusted statewide obstetrical care data: the StORQS II study in Washington State. Statewide Obstetrics Review and Quality System.Health services research · 1998Article
- Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of cesarean delivery, California.American journal of public health · 1995Article
- Variation in cesarean section rates among hospitals in Washington State.American journal of public health · 1993Article
- Cesarean section rates in Italy by hospital payment mode: an analysis based on birth certificates.American journal of public health · 1992Article
- Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1991Review
- The cesarean birth rate: influence of hospital teaching status.Health services research · 1991Article
- Recent trends in cesarean section use in California.The Western journal of medicine · 1990Article
- Cesarean section use and source of payment: an analysis of California hospital discharge abstracts.American journal of public health · 1990Article
- Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: patients, facilities or policies?Canadian Medical Association journal · 1985Article
- To section or not to section.American journal of public health · 1983Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent rapid increase in cesarean childbirth is a source of growing public health concern. We suggest that one method of ameliorating the rise would be to disseminate hospital-specific cesarean section rates. To make such rates comparable between hospitals, it is necessary to adjust for variations in maternal and newborn factors associated with cesarean section. We therefore applied an indirect standardization technique to three years of California vital records data. The results show sizable variations in cesarean section rates among individual hospitals and by hospital type, both before and after standardization. For such a method to be effective, complete and accurate information from birth certificates is an obvious prerequisite.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.