Cargando…

Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Rising cesarean section (CS) rates are a major public health concern and cause worldwide debates. To propose and implement effective measures to reduce or increase CS rates where necessary requires an appropriate classification. Despite several existing CS classifications, there has not...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Torloni, Maria Regina, Betran, Ana Pilar, Souza, Joao Paulo, Widmer, Mariana, Allen, Tomas, Gulmezoglu, Metin, Merialdi, Mario
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21283801
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566
_version_ 1782196762743668736
author Torloni, Maria Regina
Betran, Ana Pilar
Souza, Joao Paulo
Widmer, Mariana
Allen, Tomas
Gulmezoglu, Metin
Merialdi, Mario
author_facet Torloni, Maria Regina
Betran, Ana Pilar
Souza, Joao Paulo
Widmer, Mariana
Allen, Tomas
Gulmezoglu, Metin
Merialdi, Mario
author_sort Torloni, Maria Regina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rising cesarean section (CS) rates are a major public health concern and cause worldwide debates. To propose and implement effective measures to reduce or increase CS rates where necessary requires an appropriate classification. Despite several existing CS classifications, there has not yet been a systematic review of these. This study aimed to 1) identify the main CS classifications used worldwide, 2) analyze advantages and deficiencies of each system. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Three electronic databases were searched for classifications published 1968–2008. Two reviewers independently assessed classifications using a form created based on items rated as important by international experts. Seven domains (ease, clarity, mutually exclusive categories, totally inclusive classification, prospective identification of categories, reproducibility, implementability) were assessed and graded. Classifications were tested in 12 hypothetical clinical case-scenarios. From a total of 2948 citations, 60 were selected for full-text evaluation and 27 classifications identified. Indications classifications present important limitations and their overall score ranged from 2–9 (maximum grade = 14). Degree of urgency classifications also had several drawbacks (overall scores 6–9). Woman-based classifications performed best (scores 5–14). Other types of classifications require data not routinely collected and may not be relevant in all settings (scores 3–8). CONCLUSIONS: This review and critical appraisal of CS classifications is a methodologically sound contribution to establish the basis for the appropriate monitoring and rational use of CS. Results suggest that women-based classifications in general, and Robson's classification, in particular, would be in the best position to fulfill current international and local needs and that efforts to develop an internationally applicable CS classification would be most appropriately placed in building upon this classification. The use of a single CS classification will facilitate auditing, analyzing and comparing CS rates across different settings and help to create and implement effective strategies specifically targeted to optimize CS rates where necessary.
format Text
id pubmed-3024323
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30243232011-01-31 Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review Torloni, Maria Regina Betran, Ana Pilar Souza, Joao Paulo Widmer, Mariana Allen, Tomas Gulmezoglu, Metin Merialdi, Mario PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Rising cesarean section (CS) rates are a major public health concern and cause worldwide debates. To propose and implement effective measures to reduce or increase CS rates where necessary requires an appropriate classification. Despite several existing CS classifications, there has not yet been a systematic review of these. This study aimed to 1) identify the main CS classifications used worldwide, 2) analyze advantages and deficiencies of each system. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Three electronic databases were searched for classifications published 1968–2008. Two reviewers independently assessed classifications using a form created based on items rated as important by international experts. Seven domains (ease, clarity, mutually exclusive categories, totally inclusive classification, prospective identification of categories, reproducibility, implementability) were assessed and graded. Classifications were tested in 12 hypothetical clinical case-scenarios. From a total of 2948 citations, 60 were selected for full-text evaluation and 27 classifications identified. Indications classifications present important limitations and their overall score ranged from 2–9 (maximum grade = 14). Degree of urgency classifications also had several drawbacks (overall scores 6–9). Woman-based classifications performed best (scores 5–14). Other types of classifications require data not routinely collected and may not be relevant in all settings (scores 3–8). CONCLUSIONS: This review and critical appraisal of CS classifications is a methodologically sound contribution to establish the basis for the appropriate monitoring and rational use of CS. Results suggest that women-based classifications in general, and Robson's classification, in particular, would be in the best position to fulfill current international and local needs and that efforts to develop an internationally applicable CS classification would be most appropriately placed in building upon this classification. The use of a single CS classification will facilitate auditing, analyzing and comparing CS rates across different settings and help to create and implement effective strategies specifically targeted to optimize CS rates where necessary. Public Library of Science 2011-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3024323/ /pubmed/21283801 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566 Text en Torloni et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Torloni, Maria Regina
Betran, Ana Pilar
Souza, Joao Paulo
Widmer, Mariana
Allen, Tomas
Gulmezoglu, Metin
Merialdi, Mario
Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review
title Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review
title_full Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review
title_short Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review
title_sort classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024323/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21283801
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014566
work_keys_str_mv AT torlonimariaregina classificationsforcesareansectionasystematicreview
AT betrananapilar classificationsforcesareansectionasystematicreview
AT souzajoaopaulo classificationsforcesareansectionasystematicreview
AT widmermariana classificationsforcesareansectionasystematicreview
AT allentomas classificationsforcesareansectionasystematicreview
AT gulmezoglumetin classificationsforcesareansectionasystematicreview
AT merialdimario classificationsforcesareansectionasystematicreview