Caesarean Delivery Rate Review: An Evidence-Based Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2007, caesarean deliveries comprised 28% of all hospital deliveries in Ontario. Provincial caesarean delivery rates increased with maternal age and varied by Local Health Integration Network. However, the accepted rate of caesarean delivery in a low-risk maternal population remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To review the literature to assess factors that affect the likelihood of experiencing a caesarean delivery, and to examine Ontario caesarean delivery rates to determine whether there is rate variation across the province. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included publications from OVID MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, OVID Embase, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EBM Reviews, as well as data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstracts Database and the Better Outcomes and Registry Network. REVIEW METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used, which included a systematic review of the literature to delineate factors associated with the likelihood of caesarean delivery and an analysis of administrative and clinical data on hospital deliveries in Ontario to determine provincial caesarean delivery rates, variation in rates, and reasons for variation. RESULTS: Fourteen systematic reviews assessed 14 factors affecting the likelihood of caesarean delivery; 7 factors were associated with an increased likelihood of caesarean delivery, and 2 factors were associated with a decreased likelihood. Five factors had no influence. One factor provided moderate-quality evidence supporting elective induction policies in low-risk women. The overall Ontario caesarean delivery rate in a very-low-risk population was 17%, but varied significantly across Ontario hospitals. LIMITATIONS: The literature review included a 5-year period and used only systematic reviews. The determination of Robson class for women is based on care received in hospital only, and the low-risk population may have included data from women with obstetrical conditions that warranted a caesarean delivery. CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that-compared with expectant management-an induction policy is associated with a decrease in caesarean delivery rates in low-risk women. There is significant caesarean delivery rate variation among Ontario hospitals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".