Skip to main content
Atencion Primaria logoLink to Atencion Primaria
letter
. 2013 Apr 3;32(6):389–390. [Article in Spanish] doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(03)79303-2

Diferencias en la probabilidad de una cesárea asociadas con la dependencia del hospital, el volumen de casos y el riesgo obstétrico

A Sarría-Santamera a, ET López-Madurga b
PMCID: PMC7684348  PMID: 14572406

The content is available as a PDF (73.6 KB).

Este trabajo ha sido financiado con la ayuda de investigación del Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (98/0314)

Bibliografía

  • 1.Sarria S.A., Sendra Gutiérrez J.M. Evolución de las tasas de cesáreas en España: 1984–1988. Gac Sanit. 1994;8:209–214. doi: 10.1016/s0213-9111(94)71194-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Librero J., Peiro S., Calderon S.M. Interhospital variations in caesarean sections. A risk adjusted comparison in the Valencia public hospitals. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54:631–636. doi: 10.1136/jech.54.8.631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Henry O.A., Gregory K.D., Hobel C.J., Platt L.D. Using ICD-9 codes to identify indications for primary and repeat cesarean sections: agreement with clinical records. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:1143–1146. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.8_pt_1.1143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nelson K.B., Dambrosia J.M., Ting T.Y., Grether J.K. Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:613–618. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199603073341001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gifford D.S., Morton S.C., Fiske M., Keesey J., Keeler E., Kahn K.L. Lack of progress in labor as a reason for cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:589–595. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00575-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Morton S.C., Williams M.S., Keeler E.B., Gambone J.C., Kahn K.L. Effect of epidural analgesia for labor on the cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:1045–1052. doi: 10.1097/00006250-199406000-00029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Roberts C.L., Tracy S., Peat B. Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: population based descriptive study. Bmj. 2000;321:137–141. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7254.137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gregory K.D., Ramicone E., Chan L., Kahn K.L. Cesarean deliveries for Medicaid patients: a comparison in public and private hospitals in Los Angeles county. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:1177–1184. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70613-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bertollini R., DiLallo D., Spadea T., Perucci C. Cesarean section rates in Italy by hospital payment mode: an analysis based on birth certificates. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:257–261. doi: 10.2105/ajph.82.2.257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stafford R.S. The impact of nonclinical factors on repeat cesarean section. Jama. 1991;265:59–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Atencion Primaria are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES