A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.

<h4>Background</h4>Caesarean sections (CS) rates continue to increase worldwide without a clear understanding of the main drivers and consequences. The lack of a standardized internationally-accepted classification system to monitor and compare CS rates is one of the barriers to a better...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ana Pilar Betrán, Nadia Vindevoghel, Joao Paulo Souza, A Metin Gülmezoglu, Maria Regina Torloni
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/49448b836d454157bcbd99dd9daa859e
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:49448b836d454157bcbd99dd9daa859e
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:49448b836d454157bcbd99dd9daa859e2021-11-18T08:17:21ZA systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0097769https://doaj.org/article/49448b836d454157bcbd99dd9daa859e2014-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24892928/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Caesarean sections (CS) rates continue to increase worldwide without a clear understanding of the main drivers and consequences. The lack of a standardized internationally-accepted classification system to monitor and compare CS rates is one of the barriers to a better understanding of this trend. The Robson's 10-group classification is based on simple obstetrical parameters (parity, previous CS, gestational age, onset of labour, fetal presentation and number of fetuses) and does not involve the indication for CS. This classification has become very popular over the last years in many countries. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the experience of users on the implementation of this classification and proposed adaptations.<h4>Methods</h4>Four electronic databases were searched. A three-step thematic synthesis approach and a qualitative metasummary method were used.<h4>Results</h4>232 unique reports were identified, 97 were selected for full-text evaluation and 73 were included. These publications reported on the use of Robson's classification in over 33 million women from 31 countries. According to users, the main strengths of the classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility. However, missing data, misclassification of women and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification are challenges. To improve the classification for local use and to decrease heterogeneity within groups, several subdivisions in each of the 10 groups have been proposed. Group 5 (women with previous CS) received the largest number of suggestions.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The use of the Robson classification is increasing rapidly and spontaneously worldwide. Despite some limitations, this classification is easy to implement and interpret. Several suggested modifications could be useful to help facilities and countries as they work towards its implementation.Ana Pilar BetránNadia VindevoghelJoao Paulo SouzaA Metin GülmezogluMaria Regina TorloniPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 9, Iss 6, p e97769 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Ana Pilar Betrán Nadia Vindevoghel Joao Paulo Souza A Metin Gülmezoglu Maria Regina Torloni A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.
description	<h4>Background</h4>Caesarean sections (CS) rates continue to increase worldwide without a clear understanding of the main drivers and consequences. The lack of a standardized internationally-accepted classification system to monitor and compare CS rates is one of the barriers to a better understanding of this trend. The Robson's 10-group classification is based on simple obstetrical parameters (parity, previous CS, gestational age, onset of labour, fetal presentation and number of fetuses) and does not involve the indication for CS. This classification has become very popular over the last years in many countries. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the experience of users on the implementation of this classification and proposed adaptations.<h4>Methods</h4>Four electronic databases were searched. A three-step thematic synthesis approach and a qualitative metasummary method were used.<h4>Results</h4>232 unique reports were identified, 97 were selected for full-text evaluation and 73 were included. These publications reported on the use of Robson's classification in over 33 million women from 31 countries. According to users, the main strengths of the classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility. However, missing data, misclassification of women and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification are challenges. To improve the classification for local use and to decrease heterogeneity within groups, several subdivisions in each of the 10 groups have been proposed. Group 5 (women with previous CS) received the largest number of suggestions.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The use of the Robson classification is increasing rapidly and spontaneously worldwide. Despite some limitations, this classification is easy to implement and interpret. Several suggested modifications could be useful to help facilities and countries as they work towards its implementation.
format	article
author	Ana Pilar Betrán Nadia Vindevoghel Joao Paulo Souza A Metin Gülmezoglu Maria Regina Torloni
author_facet	Ana Pilar Betrán Nadia Vindevoghel Joao Paulo Souza A Metin Gülmezoglu Maria Regina Torloni
author_sort	Ana Pilar Betrán
title	A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.
title_short	A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.
title_full	A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.
title_fullStr	A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.
title_full_unstemmed	A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.
title_sort	systematic review of the robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/49448b836d454157bcbd99dd9daa859e
work_keys_str_mv	AT anapilarbetran asystematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT nadiavindevoghel asystematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT joaopaulosouza asystematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT ametingulmezoglu asystematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT mariareginatorloni asystematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT anapilarbetran systematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT nadiavindevoghel systematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT joaopaulosouza systematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT ametingulmezoglu systematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit AT mariareginatorloni systematicreviewoftherobsonclassificationforcaesareansectionwhatworksdoesntworkandhowtoimproveit
_version_	1718421919488802816

A systematic review of the Robson classification for caesarean section: what works, doesn't work and how to improve it.

Ejemplares similares