Peer Reviewed Journal in Support of Elective Cesarean Section
Introduction
Cesarean department (CS) is i of the most recurrently carried out surgical procedures in modernistic obstetrics. About 18.5 1000000 CSs are conducted yearly worldwide, and 21–33% of all CSs in excess are performed in heart and high-income countries (1, two). The effectiveness of CS in preventing maternal and prenatal mortality and morbidity is justifiable medically, though there is no scientific confirmation that shows the benefit of cesarean delivery for the mother or for the newborn baby who does not require CS. Like other surgical procedures, CS has brusque and long-term risks, which may impact the reproductive wellness and physiological health of the adult female and her child. These risks are higher in women with limited admission to comprehensive obstetric care (3).
The United States vital statistics data have shown that the risk of neonatal mortality is increased by 1.5-fold afterwards planned and unplanned CS compared to vaginal commitment, and the most common cause of neonatal mortality is respiratory morbidity (4). All the same, the incidence of birth trauma, meconium aspiration syndrome, and nascence asphyxia is reduced by this mode of delivery as compared to vaginal delivery (5). More often than not respiratory morbidity occurs as a result of failure to clear fetal lung fluid (5). In recent times, studies have revealed that the incidence of respiratory morbidity [transient tachypnea neonatal (TTN), respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), or persistence pulmonary hypertension (PPH)] was ten% in neonates born by elective CS (ECS) at 37 weeks as compared to 2.8% amid neonates born vaginally (5).
The risk of respiratory morbidity is significantly college in neonates born with a CS earlier the onset of labor compared with a CS during labor (6), and the timing of the CS also affects the incidence of respiratory morbidity. The newborn who was built-in by ECS at 37 and 38 weeks' gestation had a college risk of respiratory morbidity. Equally compared to intended vaginal delivery at 40 weeks, giving birth by ECS at 39 weeks' gestation however has an increased risk of respiratory morbidity (6–viii).
The effect of the ECS on a newborn has remained controversial (9, 10). An understanding of the effect of the ECS on the neonatal respiratory upshot would help clinicians and policymakers to brand the appropriate decision. In this review, we aim to evaluate the chance of respiratory morbidity in term singleton neonates delivered by ECS vs. spontaneous vaginal commitment (SVD), with ECS considered as an exposure variable, whereas vaginal commitment as the command group; the expected outcomes were neonatal respiratory morbidity (every bit primary result) and low Apgar score (as secondary outcome).
Materials and Methods
Searching Strategy
The whole search was conducted by three investigators [MT (PhD fellow), NA (PhD, associate professor), and TW (assistant professor)] who were trained in comprehensive searching strategies and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, with the help of ane senior librarian in our academy. Nosotros contacted the authors for full information to abstract only manufactures.
Sources of Studies and Searching Strategies
The literature search was conducted by visiting both electronic databases and gray literature sources. We used four databases to locate and call back the articles: CINAHAL, EMBASE, PUBMED, and MIDLINE. Google Scholar and Google were our grey literature sources. The searching term was every bit follows: "neonatal respiratory distress OR respiratory distress syndrome OR transient tachypnea of newborn OR persistence pulmonary hypertension AND cesarean section OR surgical procedures, operative OR vaginal birth, OR vaginal commitment obstetric surgical procedure AND full-term AND developed countries" The search was restricted to papers published in the English language and published from Jan 2000 to February 2018 (Additional Files 1).
The review menses was established based on the Meta-assay of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines (Tabular array 1). It was based on the protocol registered by the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) of the University of York with the registration number of CRD42018104905.
Table 1. MOOSE checklist for meta-analyses of observational studies.
Table 2. Description of the study characteristics for the included studies in the review.
Study Selection
We include all observational studies published in English that compare the risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity in term singleton newborn infants delivered past ECS and those who were delivered by SVD. The participants of the studies were term singleton neonates born by SVD and ECS, without congenital malformation in adult countries (based on Earth Banking concern Economic Classification). This search included all published and unpublished observational (prospective cohort, cross-exclusive, comparative cross-exclusive, retrospective accomplice, and case-control) studies done in developed countries on the effect of way of delivery on neonatal respiratory morbidity conducted from January 1, 2000 to May thirty, 2018 and written in the English language.
We excluded the studies without a comparison group and compared ECS with emergency CS. Different modes of deliveries and studies that did not differentiate between ECS and emergency CS were too excluded. In addition, studies that focused on preterm and twin births were excluded from the review. Finally, sixteen studies were identified; the details are presented in a PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).
Figure 1. PRISMA flow nautical chart.
Study Choice Process Screening
The identified studies from electronic and other relevant sources were exported to an EndNote citation managing director and indistinguishable studies were removed. The four authors (MT, BM, AA, and KT) screened the studies based on the information independent in the topic and abstract independently. Based on the screening result, the studies that did not fulfill the inclusion criteria were excluded from the review. And then the total text of included and undecided studies was obtained for further screening.
To screen the terminal studies, the authors (MT, AA, and KT) independently reviewed the full text of included and undecided studies against eligibility criteria and disquisitional appraisal; finally, xvi studies were selected. Disquisitional appraisal was done by using JBI checklists for observational studies (Additional File 2).
Data Extraction Process
All information were extracted using a structured data extraction template, a summary tabular array prepared in Microsoft Word and Excel. The summary table encompassed the following: written report writer and year, study design, sample size, data collection method, and outcome of the study. Extraction was conducted past three authors (MT, NA, and BM). During the data extraction, neonates who were delivered past ECS were included in the exposed grouping and those who were delivered by SVD were included in the non-exposed (reference) group.
Hazard of Bias (Quality) Cess
Cess of Methodological Quality
All included studies were assessed for methodological validity by the authors independently using the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) checklists (Additional File 2). Special focus was given to the objective of the study for clearly identifying variables to be measured, identification of study inclusion and exclusion criteria, apply of the probability sampling technique and preciseness of upshot interest measurement and appropriate statistical model, as well equally identification and handling of sources of bias or confounding factors (Additional File 3).
Strategy for Data Synthesis
Synthesis of private studies was conducted using the Cochrane customs Review Manager Software (RevMan version 5.3 for windows). Summary statistics (pooled effect sizes) in relative chance ratios with 95% conviction intervals were calculated. The meta-assay results were presented using a forest plot and summary table. Presence of statistical heterogeneity was tested by using the chi-squared examination (Cochran's Q-test) and forest plot at a P ≤ 0.05. The level of heterogeneity among the studies was quantified using the I two statistics, where substantial heterogeneity was assumed if the I 2 value was ≥l%. During the analysis, ECS (CS before the onset of labor, but not including emergency CS) was considered as an exposure group whereas vaginal delivery (vaginal delivery other than operative vaginal deliveries) was considered as a control grouping; gestational historic period was categorized as an early term (37 and 38 weeks), tardily term (>xl weeks), and 39 weeks of gestation.
Results
Clarification of the Studies
We got three,505 studies through searching the medical electronic database and other important sources. From those identified studies, 2,002 articles were removed due to duplication; the remaining 1,503 articles were screened by topic and abstract. Of these, 1,346 studies were excluded because the content presented in the title and the abstruse did not match with our written report. The remaining 157 studies with full text were reviewed for eligibility, and 124 studies were excluded due to an inconsistent report outcome and due to having different study populations compared with our study. The last 33 studies were critically appraised, and the studies that got a college score were included in our written report. Finally, 16 studies were included in this study (Figure 1). Of this, 3 retrospective cohorts, five prospective cohorts, seven cross-sectional studies, and ane example-control report were analyzed. Almost all studies were adjusted for confounding variables, such as smoking, BMI, marital status, number of pregnancy, maternal age, ethnicity/race, sex of the infant, and anesthesia. But only 2 studies considered the effect of fourth dimension of delivery on neonatal respiratory morbidity; the remaining 14 studies neither assessed the issue of timing nor controlled the gestational age as a misreckoning factor.
Respiratory Morbidity and Manner of Delivery
16 studies assessed the incidence of respiratory morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery. In nigh all studies that accept been reported, there is a significant human relationship betwixt the respiratory morbidity and the mode of delivery. The incidence of respiratory morbidities is 2 to three times more prevalent in neonates delivered by ECS.
A full of 382,518 neonates were assessed in 16 studies; of those, 327,272 were neonates born by vaginal commitment and the rest (55,246) were by ECS. Except for iii (9–11), all the studies showed that the incidence of respiratory morbidity was high in ECS (8, 12–14, 16–24). In item, two studies showed that the risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity was 12.35 and 10 times more in neonates built-in by ECS (RR = 12.35; 95% CI: 0.66–222.25 and RR = 10.01; 95%CI: v.26–nineteen.05) (8, 22). On the other manus, 3 studies favor the ECS with non-significant association with respiratory morbidity (9–xi). The pooled analysis showed that the independence of respiratory morbidity was increased by 95% in neonates delivered past ECS (RR = i.95; 95% CI: 1.40–2.73; Figure 2).
Figure 2. Gamble of neonatal respiratory morbidity in spontaneous vaginal delivery vs. elective cesarean, 2019.
Subgroup Analysis and Publication Bias
Subgroup analysis was performed by the countries where the studies were conducted. The take a chance of neonatal respiratory morbidity was 1.91 times more in neonates delivered past ECS in loftier and middle-income countries (RR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.49), while it was iii.45 times more in the ECS grouping at upper-income countries. The issue showed that the risk was high in upper-income countries. However, heterogeneity tests indicated that I 2 = 85 and 92%, respectively. Sensitivity assay was too done by removing the outlier and no significant difference was found (Effigy three). Publication bias was not detected in all studies and methods (Additional File 3).
Figure 3. Subgroup analysis; risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity in spontaneous vaginal delivery vs. elective cesarean section at upper-middle income and higher-income countries, 2019.
Issue of Time of Delivery on Neonatal Respiratory Morbidity
Nosotros got only one study in our written report period that compared SVD and the ECS with the timing of nascence, so nosotros added one study washed in 1995 (25).
Risk of Neonatal Respiratory Morbidity at Early Term and Mode of Delivery
Two studies were included in the meta-analysis to assess the adventure of neonatal respiratory morbidity in the early on term in relation to the mode of delivery. The general risk ratio revealed that in that location was a meaning association betwixt early on-term birth and the style of commitment; the hazard of respiratory morbidity was six.3 times more likely to occur in early-term neonates delivered by elective cesarean section than early on-term neonates born vaginally (RR = 5.53; 95% CI: 4.45, 8.595). The heterogeneity test indicated that I 2 = 0%; hence, a fixed-consequence model was assumed in the analysis (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Hazard of neonatal respiratory morbidity in early term and manner of commitment, 2019.
Hazard of Neonatal Respiratory Morbidity at 39 Weeks of Gestation and Manner of Commitment
The pooled analysis showed that the run a risk of respiratory morbidity significantly increased by 507% in neonates delivered by ECS at 39 weeks of gestation relatively to neonates born by vaginal commitment at 39 weeks (RR = 6.07; CI 95%: two.89, 12.75). The heterogeneity test indicated that I ii = 0%; hence, a fixed-effect model was causeless in the analysis (Figure 5).
Effigy 5. Risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity at 39 weeks of gestation and fashion of delivery, 2019.
Risk of Neonatal Respiratory Morbidity at Belatedly Term and Mode of Delivery
The full general risk ratio revealed that at that place was a non-significant clan between the belatedly term of nascence and the mode of commitment (RR = ii.39; 95% CI: 0.86, 5.64). The adventure of respiratory morbidity was 2.4 times more in late-term neonates delivered by elective cesarean delivery (Figure 6).
Effigy half dozen. Gamble of neonatal respiratory morbidity at tardily term and mode of delivery, 2019.
Apgar Score and Mode of Delivery
The relation between the fashion of delivery and the 5-min low Apgar score was reported in seven studies. From these, iii studies favor ECS (26–28) but just 1 of them showed pregnant clan (RR = 0.43; 95%CI: 0.21, 0.xc) (26); the aforementioned number of studies favors vaginal delivery (x, nineteen, 24), in which two studies showed significant clan (10, xix) while one showed non-significant association (24). One written report revealed that the chance of the Apgar score was the same in both groups (RR = 1.00; 95%CI: 0.72, 1.39) (23). The summary effect size demonstrates that the risk of the low Apgar score was almost similar in both modes of commitment just non-significantly higher in ECS (RR = 1.12; 95%CI: 0.64–1.xviii) (Effigy seven).
Effigy 7. Depression Apgar scores in relation to way of delivery, 2019.
Discussion
Our systematic review and meta-analysis point that the risk of respiratory morbidity is high in ECS commitment and the nearly common respiratory problems were TTN and RDS in most eligible studies; less often, PPHN showed in some infants born by ECS.
Creating a smooth transition to air breathing is one of the major challenges a newborn faces afterward nascency. This task is hard because the fetal lung is full of fluid; to allow gas exchange, the fluid found in the fetal lung should exist cleared rapidly. Failure to articulate the fetal lung fluid results in respiratory morbidity, especially in some infants delivered past ECS (15). The review demonstrates that the risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity is significantly increased with ECS as compared to vaginal delivery.
This result is supported by a multicenter written report done at eleven hospitals in northeastern Italy that showed that the incidence of pulmonary disorder was high in ECS as compared to SVD (4.29 vs. 0.81%). According to this written report, the pulmonary disorders considered are transient tachypnea of the newborn and respiratory distress syndrome (29). Similarly, a systematic review without meta-analysis analyzes ix studies comparing respiratory complications after ECS vs. vaginal delivery and revealed the range of hazard, which was 20–seventy per 10,000 with ECS and ten–20 per x,000 with vaginal delivery birth (thirty).
Immediately later delivery, cess should exist done for newborn infants for early identification of newborn bug. One of the popular cess tools is the Apgar score, which is a simple and effective method for assessing neonatal health in the immediate period after birth. The valid predictor of neonatal mortality, neurologic disability, and primal auditory impairment is the low Apgar score at 5 min (31). We found that the commitment mode had non-significant association with 5-min Apgar scores. Even though the take chances was better in vaginal commitment than ECS, a multicenter written report of Maso and Monasta showed that the risk of a low Apgar score was higher in neonates delivered past CS as compared with vaginal commitment: 0.36 vs. 1.62% (29).
Decision
This study investigated the effect of the fashion of delivery on respiratory morbidity without considering other risks and institute that neonates delivered via ECS accept a high adventure of developing neonatal respiratory morbidities when compared to those delivered via SVD. And so, we recommend that an unnecessary CS should be discouraged by informing mothers. We also recommend other researchers to conduct RCTs regarding complications of respiratory morbidity and as well its effect on families and society at big.
Strengths and limitations
A major limitation of our meta-analysis was the number of studies (there were only 2), which considered gestational age, and the heterogeneity of the written report, which was due to the variation betwixt studies in design, the characteristic of the written report population, and medical and non-medical factors that caused the variation between studies. The study did not investigate other risks than respiratory morbidity. The major force of our meta-analysis is that a comprehensive literature search was practical to include all studies in the area. Screening of the studies was based on our objective; to avoid duplication, a cautious exclusion of studies with overlapping populations was done. The concluding summary outcome was taken subsequently critically appraising the studies.
Data Availability Argument
All datasets generated for this written report are included in the article/Supplementary Material.
Author Contributions
MT, NA, BM, AA, KT, and TW conceived and designed the review. MT is the guarantor of the review and carried out the draft of the manuscript. MT, NA, and TW developed the search strings. MT, BM, AA, and KT screened and selected the studies. MT, NA, and BM carried out the analysis and estimation, and rigorously reviewed the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or fiscal relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the staff of the School of Nursing and Midwifery and the Section of Environmental Health Sciences, College of Health and Medical Sciences, Haramaya University, who technically supported united states of america for the realization of this article.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this commodity can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/manufactures/ten.3389/fped.2020.00286/full#supplementary-material
Abbreviations
CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio; ESC, elective cesarean section; ESD, elective cesarean delivery; CS, cesarean department; VD, vaginal delivery; BMI, body mass alphabetize; RDS, respiratory distress syndrome; TTN, transient tachypnea neonatal; PPHN, persistence pulmonary hypertension; MAS, meconium aspiration syndrome; ABG, arterial claret gas.
References
1. Luz Gibbons, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, Betrán AP, Merialdi M, Althabe F. The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse equally a Barrier to Universal Coverage. World Health Report, Background Newspaper. (2010). p. xxx.
Google Scholar
2. Betrán AP, Merialdi Thousand, Lauer JA, Bing-shun W, Thomas J, van Look P, et al. Rates of cesarean section: assay of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. (2007) 21:98–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00786.x
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
iii. UNDP UNFPA UNICEF, Globe Banking company, WHO. WHO Argument on Caesarean Section Rates. World Health Organization (2015). p. xv.
Google Scholar
4. Africa Ncoceimdis. Saving Mothers: Caesarean Section Monograph. National Department of Wellness South Africa. (2013).
Google Scholar
5. Hansen AK, Henriksen TB, Wisborg 1000, Uldbjerg Due north. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective cesarean section: a cohort written report. BMJ. (2007) 336:85–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39405.539282.BE
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
half-dozen. Hefny MS, Taher Hashem MA, Abdel-Razek AAR, Ayad MS. The neonatal respiratory issue in relation to the timing of elective cesarean section at 38 versus 39-weeks gestation: a single center-based study. Elsevier. (2013) 61:78–82. doi: ten.1016/j.epag.2013.06.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
7. Ben Hamida Nouaili East, Bouziri A, Ben Miled A, Chaouachi S, Rachida S, Najila BJ. Neonatal respiratory morbidity after elective cesarean department at term. Tunis Med. (2010) 88:924–7.
PubMed Abstruse | Google Scholar
8. Many A, Helpman L, Vilnai Y, Kupferminc MJ, Lessing JB, Dollberg S. Neonatal respiratory morbidity after elective cesarean department. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. (2006) 19:75–8. doi: 10.1080/14767050500333868
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
nine. Wankaew N, Jirapradittha J, Kiatchoosakun P. Neonatal morbidity and bloodshed for repeated cesarean department vs. normal vaginal commitment to simple term pregnancies at Srinagarind Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai. (2013) 96:654–60.
PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar
ten. Borgwardt L, Bach D, Nickelsen C, Gutte H, Boerch M. Elective cesarean department increases the risk of respiratory morbidity of the newborn. Acta Paediatrica. (2009) 98:187–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01054.x
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
12. Ceriani Cernadas JM, Mariani 1000, Pardo A, Aguirre A, Pérez C, Brener P, et al. Nacimiento por cesárea al término en embarazos de Bajo riesgo: efectos sobre la morbilidad neonatal. Archivos Argentinos de Pediatr. (2010) 108:17–23.
PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar
13. Dehdashtian M, Riazi Eastward, Aletayeb MH. Influence of mode of commitment at term on the neonatal respiratory morbidity. Pak J Med Sci. (2008) 24:556–9.
Google Scholar
14. Gyurkovits Z, Sári T, Németh Chiliad, Orvos H. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery. In: 13th World Congress of Perinatal Medicine. Belgrade (2017). p. 183.
Google Scholar
16. Heinzmann A, Brugger K, Engels C, Prompeler H, Superti-Furga A, Strauch K, et al. Risk factors of neonatal respiratory distress following vaginal delivery and cesarean department in the German population. Acta Paediatr. (2009) 98:25–30. doi: ten.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01150.x
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
17. Karlström A, Lindgren H, Hildingsson I. Maternal and infant outcome after cesarean department without recorded medical indication: findings from a Swedish case-control report. BJOG. (2013) 120:479–86. doi: ten.1111/1471-0528.12129
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
18. Herstad L, Klungsøyr K, Skjærven R, Tanbo T, Forsén L, Åbyholm T, et al. Elective cesarean department or non? Maternal historic period and chance of adverse outcomes at term: a population-based registry study of depression-chance primiparous women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2016) 16:230. doi: x.1186/s12884-016-1028-3
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
19. Liston FA, Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Jangaard KA. Neonatal outcomes with cesarean delivery at term. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. (2008) 93:F176–82. doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.112565
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
20. Liu X, Landon MB, Cheng Westward, Chen Y. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in Communist china: what are the risks and benefits? Am J Obstet Gynecol. (2015) 212:817.e1–.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.043
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
21. Smith K, Woods A, White I, Pell J, Cameron A, Dobbie R. Neonatal respiratory morbidity at term and the chance of childhood asthma. Arch Dis Childh. (2004) 89:956–60. doi: x.1136/adc.2003.045971
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
22. Saddi YIA, Baythoon MB, Tahir AG. The timing of elective caesarean deliveries and early neonatal respiratory morbidity in term neonates. J Faculty Med. (2018) 60:38–42. doi: 10.32007/jfacmedbagdad.v60i1.38
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
23. Thavarajah H, Flatley C, Kumar S. The relationship between the five minute Apgar score, mode of birth and neonatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. (2018) 31:1335–41. doi: ten.1080/14767058.2017.1315666
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
24. Zanardo V, Simbi A, Franzoi One thousand, Solda G, Salvadori A, Trevisanuto D. Neonatal respiratory morbidity take chances and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective cesarean delivery. Acta Pædiatr. (2004) 93:643–seven. doi: ten.1111/j.1651-2227.2004.tb02990.x
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
25. Morrison JJ, Rennie JM, Milton PJ. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and style of delivery at term: influence of timing of constituent cesarean section. BJOG. (1995) 102:101–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb09060.x
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
26. Geller E, Wu J, Jannelli M, Nguyen T, Visco A. Neonatal outcomes associated with planned vaginal versus planned primary cesarean commitment. J Perinatol. (2010) 30:258. doi: x.1038/jp.2009.150
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
27. Quiroz LH, Chang H, Blomquist JL, Okoh YK, Handa VL. Scheduled cesarean delivery: maternal and neonatal risks in primiparous women in a customs hospital setting. Am J Perinatol. (2009) 26:271–7. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1103155
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
28. Rahmani Due south, Saeedi R, Rahmani E. Evaluation of neonatal complications in caesarian department and vaginal commitment. Arch Dis Childhood. (2012) 97(Suppl. 2):A493. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2012-302724.1743
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
29. Maso Grand, Monasta L, Piccoli G, Ronfani L, Montico M, De Seta F, et al. Run a risk-adjusted operative delivery rates and maternal-neonatal outcomes as measures of quality assessment in obstetric care: a multicenter prospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2015) 15:20. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0450-2
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
30. Hansen AK, Wisborg G, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB. Elective cesarean section and respiratory morbidity in the term and well-nigh-term neonate. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. (2007) 86:389–94. doi: x.1080/00016340601159256
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
31. Kliegman RM, Behrman RE, Jenson HB, Stanton BM. Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics. 18th edn. New York, NY: Elsevier Health Sciences (2007).
Google Scholar
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fped.2020.00286/full
Post a Comment for "Peer Reviewed Journal in Support of Elective Cesarean Section"