What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies

Reproductive Health

Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu⁶  Joshua Peter Vogel⁶  Özge Tunçalp⁶  João Paulo Souza²  Olufemi Taiwo Oladapo⁶  Catherine Deneux-Tharaux³  Rafael Mikolajczyk⁵  Jiangfeng Ye⁴  Jun Zhang⁴  Maria Regina Torloni¹  Ana Pilar Betran⁶ 

[1] Brazilian Cochrane Center and Department of Obstetrics, São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, Brazil;Department of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil;INSERM U1153, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team, Center for Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France;Ministry of Education–Shanghai Key Laboratory of Children’s Environmental Health, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China;Epidemiological and Statistical Methods Research Group, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Braunschweig, Germany and Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany;UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO, World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, Geneva CH-1211, Switzerland

关键词: Systematic review;    Newborn mortality;    Maternal mortality;    Population;    Rates;    Caesarean section;   

Others  :  1218667
DOI  :  10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6

 received in 2015-02-27, accepted in 2015-05-13,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

In 1985, WHO stated that there was no justification for caesarean section (CS) rates higher than 10–15 % at population-level. While the CS rates worldwide have continued to increase in an unprecedented manner over the subsequent three decades, concern has been raised about the validity of the 1985 landmark statement. We conducted a systematic review to identify, critically appraise and synthesize the analyses of the ecologic association between CS rates and maternal, neonatal and infant outcomes. Four electronic databases were searched for ecologic studies published between 2000 and 2014 that analysed the possible association between CS rates and maternal, neonatal or infant mortality or morbidity. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment independently. We identified 11,832 unique citations and eight studies were included in the review. Seven studies correlated CS rates with maternal mortality, five with neonatal mortality, four with infant mortality, two with LBW and one with stillbirths. Except for one, all studies were cross-sectional in design and five were global analyses of national-level CS rates versus mortality outcomes. Although the overall quality of the studies was acceptable; only two studies controlled for socio-economic factors and none controlled for clinical or demographic characteristics of the population. In unadjusted analyses, authors found a strong inverse relationship between CS rates and the mortality outcomes so that maternal, neonatal and infant mortality decrease as CS rates increase up to a certain threshold. In the eight studies included in this review, this threshold was at CS rates between 9 and 16 %. However, in the two studies that adjusted for socio-economic factors, this relationship was either weakened or disappeared after controlling for these confounders. CS rates above the threshold of 9–16 % were not associated with decreases in mortality outcomes regardless of adjustments. Our findings could be interpreted to mean that at CS rates below this threshold, socio-economic development may be driving the ecologic association between CS rates and mortality. On the other hand, at rates higher than this threshold, there is no association between CS and mortality outcomes regardless of adjustment. The ecological association between CS rates and relevant morbidity outcomes needs to be evaluated before drawing more definite conclusions at population level.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Betran et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436–7.
• [2]Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA, Bing-shun W, Thomas J, Van Look P et al.. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007; 21:98-113.
• [3]Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA, Betran AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206(4):331.
• [4]Ye J, Betran AP, Vela MG, Souza JP, Zhang J. Searching for the Optimal Rate of Medically Necessary Cesarean Delivery. Birth. 2014; 41(3):237-243.
• [5]Vogel JP, Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J et al.. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global health. 2015; 3(5):e260-e270.
• [6]Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P et al.. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–08. Lancet. 2010; 375:490-499.
• [7]What is the right number of caesarean sections? Lancet. 1997;349:815–6.
• [8]Souza JP, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B et al.. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004–2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med. 2010; 8:71. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207(1):14-29.
• [10]Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205(3):262.
• [11]WHO UNFPA, UNICEF AMDD. Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2009.
• [12]Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth. 2006; 33(4):270-277.
• [13]Volpe FM. Correlation of Cesarean rates to maternal and infant mortality rates: an ecologic study of official international data. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health. 2011; 29(5):303-308.
• [14]Zizza A, Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Barbone E, Stark M, De Donno A et al.. Caesarean section in the world: a new ecological approach. J Prev Med Hyg. 2011; 52(4):161-173.
• [15]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2535.
• [16]Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al.. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000; 283:2008-2012.
• [17]Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, PA; 1998.
• [18]Dufault B, Klar N. The quality of modern cross-sectional ecologic studies: a bibliometric review. Am J Epidemiol. 2011; 174(10):1101-1107.
• [19]Jurdi R, Khawaja M. Caesarean section rates in the Arab region: a cross-national study. Health Policy Plan. 2004; 19(2):101-110.
• [20]McClure EM, Goldenberg RL, Bann CM. Maternal mortality, stillbirth and measures of obstetric care in developing and developed countries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007; 96(2):139-146.
• [21]Silva AA, Silva LM, Barbieri MA, Bettiol H, Carvalho LM, Ribeiro VS et al.. The epidemiologic paradox of low birth weight in Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2010; 44(5):767-775.
• [22]Brazilian Ministry of Health. Sistema de Informações de Nacidos Vivos - SINASC. 2011.
• [23]Cevallos M, Poole C, von Elm E, Altman D, Strobe EM. Response to Rezaeian: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) extension for ecological studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(7):837-838.
• [24]Rezaeian M. A call for revising the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology statement to include ecologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67(7):836-837.
• [25]WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank and the United Nations Population Division. Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2013. Estimates by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank and the United Nations Population Division. 2014.
• [26]World Health Statistics 2014. World Health Organization, Geneva; 2014.
• [27]Stanton CK, Dubourg D, De Brouwere V, Pujades M, Ronsmans C. Reliability of data on caesarean sections in developing countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2005; 83(6):449-455.
• [28]Souza JP, al e. C-Model: a global reference for caesarean section rates. BJOG (in press). 2015.
• [29]Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M et al.. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2011; 6(1):e14566.
• [30]Betran AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. A Systematic Review of the Robson Classification for Caesarean Section: What Works, Doesn’t Work and How to Improve It. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e97769.
• [31]Robson M, Hartigan L, Murphy M. Methods of achieving and maintaining an appropriate caesarean section rate. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 27:297-308.