Preventing unnecessary caesarean sections: marginal benefit of a second opinion

[1]  J. Ecker.  Once a pregnancy, always a cesarean? Rationale and feasibility of a randomized controlled trial. , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  C. Victora,et al.  Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  D. Turnbull,et al.  Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. , 2002, Birth.

[4]  D. Creedy,et al.  Women's preference for a cesarean section: incidence and associated factors. , 2001, Birth.

[5]  C. Roberts,et al.  Rates for obstetric intervention among private and public patients in Australia: population based descriptive study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  K. Miura,et al.  Trends in stroke incidence and acute case fatality in a Japanese rural area : the Oyabe study. , 2000, Stroke.

[7]  J. Walker,et al.  The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold , 1998, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[8]  N. Fisk,et al.  Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice. , 1997, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[9]  C. Sudlow,et al.  Comparing stroke incidence worldwide: what makes studies comparable? , 1996, Stroke.

[10]  V. Feigin,et al.  Stroke incidence and 30-day case-fatality rates in Novosibirsk, Russia, 1982 through 1992. , 1995, Stroke.

[11]  B. Williams.  Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? , 1994, Social science & medicine.

[12]  H. S. Jørgensen,et al.  Marked Increase of Stroke Incidence in Men Between 1972 and 1990 in Frederiksberg, Denmark , 1992, Stroke.

[13]  Ben Moore,et al.  APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY FOR BIRTH , 1985, The Lancet.

[14]  W R RUSSELL,et al.  Connexions and functions of frontal lobes. , 1947, Lancet.