Could a randomised trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery

International concerns about rising rates of caesarean section are counterbalanced by arguments that planned caesarean section without specific clinical indication (such as breech presentation or HIV infection) falls within legitimate maternal choice. A well designed, randomised controlled trial of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBMJ Vol. 331; no. 7515; pp. 490 - 491
Main Authors Lavender, Tina, Kingdon, Carol, Hart, Anna, Gyte, Gill, Gabbay, Mark, Neilson, James P
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London British Medical Journal Publishing Group 03.09.2005
British Medical Association
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
BMJ Publishing Group
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
EditionInternational edition
Subjects
Attitude of Health Personnel
Attitude to Health
Biological and medical sciences
Births
Cesarean Section
Clinical trials
Comparative analysis
Consultants
Elective Surgical Procedures
England
Female
General aspects
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Medical specialists
Medical Staff, Hospital - psychology
Midwifery
Midwives
Nurse Midwives - psychology
Obstetrics
Pregnancy
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Womens health
England
Medicine
Head
Treatment
Health staff
Surgery
Clinical trial
Midwife
Cesarean section
Public health
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:International concerns about rising rates of caesarean section are counterbalanced by arguments that planned caesarean section without specific clinical indication (such as breech presentation or HIV infection) falls within legitimate maternal choice. A well designed, randomised controlled trial of planned caesarean section compared with planned vaginal birth could provide important evidence.
Bibliography:ark:/67375/NVC-7V2TWPTW-M
href:bmj-331-490.pdf
local:bmj;331/7515/490
Correspondence to: T Lavender
istex:06A537455D958C5F5F8CC4B10A6AE111BE569DF4
ArticleID:bmj.38560.572639.3A
PMID:16115829
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Ethical approval: Liverpool Research Ethics Committee (twice; reference 01/008-08/03/2001, reference 01/008-11/03/2003).
Contributors: TL, CK, GG, MG, and JPN designed the study. TL, CK, and AH analysed the data. TL, CK, and AH wrote the paper. TL, CK, AH, GG, MG, and JPN reviewed and amended drafts of the paper. All authors contributed critical comments to the paper. TL is the principal investigator of the survey and principal guarantor of the paper.
The authors acknowledge the support of Ruth Cattrell, research midwife, all of the heads of midwifery, and consultant obstetricians who participated.
Competing interests: None declared.
Correspondence to: T Lavender tinalav@yahoo.co.uk
This article was first posted on bmj.com on 22 August 2005: http://bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.38560.572639.3A
Funding: University of Central Lancashire, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust.
ISSN:0959-8138
0959-8146
1468-5833
1756-1833
DOI:10.1136/bmj.38560.572639.3A