↓ Skip to main content

Non-obstetrical indications for cesarean section: a state-of-the-art review

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Non-obstetrical indications for cesarean section: a state-of-the-art review
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00404-018-4742-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberta Venturella, Paola Quaresima, Mariella Micieli, Erika Rania, Annarita Palumbo, Federica Visconti, Fulvio Zullo, Costantino Di Carlo

Abstract

To propose an evidence-based review on the most frequent indications for Cesarean section (CS) given by specialists in disciplines other than Obstetrics and Gynecology, with the aim of increasing consciousness about the available data in the literature and the guidelines recommendations about topics that are not frequently managed by obstetricians and gynecologists. We analyzed hospital discharge data regarding deliveries occurred in a 10-year study period in our department to obtain the prevalence and the list of the most recurrent non-obstetrical indications for CS. A search was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Ovid MEDLINE and only studies published in English from 1950 to 2017 were included. For indications for which no systematic reviews existed, we included the best available evidence, including guidelines of non-obstetrics scientific societies or organizations, RCTs, non-randomized controlled clinical trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, and case series. The rising rate of CS registered in the recent years is not justified by reduction in maternal--fetal risk or perinatal outcomes and often reflects inappropriate clinical behaviour and a wrong tendency that assimilates CS as a defensive practice. In a relevant percentage of cases, the indication to CS is given by specialists in other disciplines, even when specific guidelines do not give clear recommendation about the route of delivery. To refuse non-obstetrical indications for CS, when scientific support is lacking, could be a useful and safe strategy to further reduce the rate of unnecessary CS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Other 6 14%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 11 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 20%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2018.
All research outputs
#16,222,522
of 24,676,547 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#1,299
of 2,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,632
of 337,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#16
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,676,547 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.