Article

Classifications for Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review

Department of Obstetrics, Sao Paulo Federal University and Brazilian Cochrane Centre, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 01/2011; 6(1):e14566. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014566
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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).
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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: João Paulo Souza, Feb 01, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
277 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate the feasibility of using the Robson Ten Group Classification System (TGCS) for cesarean delivery (CD) indications at institutional level. Prospective clinical audits of women delivering by CD at Women's Health Hospital, Assiut, Egypt, were conducted in 2008 and 2011. The CD rates overall and in each Robson group were calculated, as was the contribution of each group to the overall CD rate. In addition, the CD indications in each group were analyzed. The CD rate was 32% (443/1357) in 2008 and 38% (626/1628) in 2011. The most common CD indication at both time intervals was a previous CD. Multiparas without uterine scar, a single cephalic term pregnancy, and spontaneous labor (Robson Group 3) comprised the largest group of women undergoing CD, followed by nulliparas with a single cephalic term pregnancy and spontaneous labor (Group 1), and multiparas with a scarred uterus and a single cephalic term pregnancy (Group 5). Group 5 was the largest contributor (30%) to the overall CD rate, followed by Groups 1 and 4 (10% each). The TGCS can be applied at institutional level. It helps in planning strategies for specific subgroups of women to reduce CD rates and improve outcomes.
    International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 07/2013; 123(2). DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.05.011
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Special Programme of Research in Human Reproduction (HRP), co-sponsored by the UNDP, UNFPA, WHO, and the World Bank, is celebrating 40 years of activities with an expansion of its mandate and new co-sponsors. When it began, in 1972, the main focus was on evaluating the acceptability, effectiveness, and safety of existing fertility-regulating methods, as well as developing new, improved modalities for family planning. In 1994, HRP not only made major contributions to the Plan of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD); it also broadened its scope of work to include other aspects of health dealing with sexuality and reproduction, adding a specific perspective on gender issues and human rights. In 2002, HRP's mandate was once again broadened to include sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS and in 2003 it was further expanded to research activities on preventing violence against women and its many dire health consequences. Today, the work of the Programme includes research on: the sexual and reproductive health of adolescents, women, and men; maternal and perinatal health; reproductive tract and sexually transmitted infections (including HIV/AIDS); family planning; infertility; unsafe abortion; sexual health; screening for cancer of the cervix in developing countries, and gender and reproductive rights. Additional activities by the Programme have included: fostering international cooperation in the field of human reproduction; the elaboration of WHO's first Global Reproductive Health Strategy; work leading to the inclusion of ICPD's goal 'reproductive health for all by 2015' into the Millennium Development Goal framework; the promotion of critical interagency statements on the public health, legal, and human rights implications of female genital mutilation and gender-biased sex selection. Finally, HRP has been involved in the creation of guidelines and tools, such as the 'Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use', the 'Global handbook for family planning providers', the 'Definition of core competencies in primary health care', and designing tools for operationalizing a human rights approach to sexual and reproductive health programmes.
    Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 01/2012; 74(3):190-217. DOI:10.1159/000343067
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Caesarean section (CS) rate is a quality of health care indicator frequently used at national and international level. The aim of this study was to assess whether adjustment for Robson’s Ten Group Classification System (TGCS), and clinical and socio-demographic variables of the mother and the fetus is necessary for inter-hospital comparisons of CS rates. Methods The study population includes 64,423 deliveries in Emilia-Romagna between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2004, classified according to theTGCS. Poisson regression was used to estimate crude and adjusted hospital relative risks of CS compared to a reference category. Analyses were carried out in the overall population and separately according to the Robson groups (groups I, II, III, IV and V–X combined). Adjusted relative risks (RR) of CS were estimated using two risk-adjustment models; the first (M1) including the TGCS group as the only adjustment factor; the second (M2) including in addition demographic and clinical confounders identified using a stepwise selection procedure. Percentage variations between crude and adjusted RRs by hospital were calculated to evaluate the confounding effect of covariates. Results The percentage variations from crude to adjusted RR proved to be similar in M1 and M2 model. However, stratified analyses by Robson’s classification groups showed that residual confounding for clinical and demographic variables was present in groups I (nulliparous, single, cephalic, ≥37 weeks, spontaneous labour) and III (multiparous, excluding previous CS, single, cephalic, ≥37 weeks, spontaneous labour) and IV (multiparous, excluding previous CS, single, cephalic, ≥37 weeks, induced or CS before labour) and to a minor extent in groups II (nulliparous, single, cephalic, ≥37 weeks, induced or CS before labour) and IV (multiparous, excluding previous CS, single, cephalic, ≥37 weeks, induced or CS before labour). Conclusions The TGCS classification is useful for inter-hospital comparison of CS section rates, but residual confounding is present in the TGCS strata.
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 06/2012; 12(1):54. DOI:10.1186/1471-2393-12-54