List of 104 References: Consensus document ~ ACOG & SMFM reducing primary CS ~ 2016

by faithgibson on May 26, 2016

Number 1, March 2014 (Reaffirmed 2016)

This document was developed jointly by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine with the assistance of Aaron B. Caughey, MD, PhD; Alison G. Cahill, MD, MSCI; Jeanne-Marie Guise, MD, MPH; and Dwight J. Rouse, MD, MSPH. The information reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued, is subject to change, and should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure. Variations in practice may be warranted based on the needs of the individual patient, resources, and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice.

PDF Format

0-2 copy

Safe Prevention
of the Primary
Cesarean Delivery

References

  1. Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010-2011. Pediatrics 2013;131:548–58. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  2. Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol 2012;29:7–18. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  3. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu R, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No.191. AHRQ Publication No. 10-E003. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. Available at:  http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/vbacup-evidence-report.pdf. Retrieved November 7, 2013. ⇦
  4. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:36.e1-36.e5; discussion 91–2. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  5. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED, Chalmers B, Kung R, Willan A, et al. Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Term Breech Trial 3-Month Follow-up Collaborative Group. JAMA 2002;287:1822–31. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  6. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:917–27. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  7. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ 2007;176:455–60. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  8. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:1226–32. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  9. Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:262.e1–262.e8. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  10. Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003;362:1779–84. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  11. Solheim KN, Esakoff TF, Little SE, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The effect of cesarean delivery rates on the future incidence of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and maternal mortality. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:1341–6. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  12. Kozhimannil KB, Law MR, Virnig BA. Cesarean delivery rates vary tenfold among US hospitals; reducing variation may address quality and cost issues. Health Aff 2013;32:527–35. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  13. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991-2002. Am J Public Health 2006;96:867–72. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  14. Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Rise in “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the United States, 1991-2001: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 2005;330:71–2. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  15. Rhodes JC, Schoendorf KC, Parker JD. Contribution of excess weight gain during pregnancy and macrosomia to the cesarean delivery rate, 1990-2000. Pediatrics 2003;111:1181–5. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  16. Barber EL, Lundsberg LS, Belanger K, Pettker CM, Funai EF, Illuzzi JL. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:29–38. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  17. Friedman EA. An objective approach to the diagnosis and management of abnormal labor. Bull N Y Acad Med 1972; 48:842–58. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  18. Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR. Amniotomy and the course of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1963;22:755–70. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  19. Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954;68:1568–75. [PubMed] ⇦
  20. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Consortium on Safe Labor. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1281–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  21. Arulkumaran S, Koh CH, Ingemarsson I, Ratnam SS. Augmentation of labour—mode of delivery related to cervimetric progress. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;27: 304–8. [PubMed] ⇦
  22. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. Active-phase labor arrest: oxytocin augmentation for at least 4 hours. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:323–8. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  23. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Savage KG, Hauth JC. Active phase labor arrest: revisiting the 2-hour minimum. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:550–4. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  24. Henry DE, Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Kaimal AJ, Bianco K, Caughey AB. Perinatal outcomes in the setting of active phase arrest of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1109–15. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  25. Rouse DJ, Landon M, Leveno KJ, Leindecker S, Varner MW, Caritis SN, et al. The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units cesarean registry: chorioamnionitis at term and its duration-relationship to outcomes. National Institute of Child Health And Human Development, Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:211–6. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  26. Piper JM, Bolling DR, Newton ER. The second stage of labor: factors influencing duration. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:976–9. [PubMed] ⇦
  27. Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, Varner MW, Spong CY, Ramin SM, et al. Second-stage labor duration in nulliparous women: relationship to maternal and perinatal outcomes. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:357. e1–357.e7. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  28. Le Ray C, Audibert F, Goffinet F, Fraser W. When to stop pushing: effects of duration of second-stage expulsion efforts on maternal and neonatal outcomes in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:361.e1–361.e7. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  29. Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. How long is too long: Does a prolonged second stage of labor in nulliparous women affect maternal and neonatal outcomes? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:933–8. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  30. Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Laros RK,Jr, Caughey AB. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:585.e1–585.e6. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  31. Allen VM, Baskett TF, O’Connell CM, McKeen D, Allen AC. Maternal and perinatal outcomes with increasing duration of the second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:1248–58. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  32. Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Bianco K, Caughey AB. Timing of operative vaginal delivery and associated perinatal outcomes in nulliparous women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:692–7. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  33. Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1181–93. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  34. Srinivas SK, Epstein AJ, Nicholson S, Herrin J, Asch DA. Improvements in US maternal obstetrical outcomes from 1992 to 2006. Med Care 2010;48:487–93. [PubMed] ⇦
  35. Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1709–14. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  36. Werner EF, Janevic TM, Illuzzi J, Funai EF, Savitz DA, Lipkind HS. Mode of delivery in nulliparous women and neonatal intracranial injury. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1239–46. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  37. O’Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD005455. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  38. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin 17. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2000. ⇦
  39. Powell J, Gilo N, Foote M, Gil K, Lavin JP. Vacuum and forceps training in residency: experience and self-reported competency. J Perinatol 2007;27:343–6. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  40. Shaffer BL, Caughey AB. Forceps delivery: potential benefits and a call for continued training. J Perinatol 2007;27:327–8. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  41. Cheng YW, Hubbard A, Caughey AB, Tager IB. The association between persistent fetal occiput posterior position and perinatal outcomes: an example of propensity score and covariate distance matching. Am J Epidemiol 2010;171:656–63. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  42. Lieberman E, Davidson K, Lee-Parritz A, Shearer E. Changes in fetal position during labor and their association with epidural analgesia. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:974–82. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  43. Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas JE, Caughey AB. Manual rotation to reduce caesarean delivery in persistent occiput posterior or transverse position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011;24:65–72. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  44. Le Ray C, Serres P, Schmitz T, Cabrol D, Goffinet F. Manual rotation in occiput posterior or transverse positions: risk factors and consequences on the cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110:873–9. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  45. Cargill YM, MacKinnon CJ, Arsenault MY, Bartellas E, Daniels S, Gleason T, et al. Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee. J Obstet Gynaecol can 2004;26:747–61. [PubMed] ⇦
  46. Reichman O, Gdansky E, Latinsky B, Labi S, Samueloff A. Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;136:25–8. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  47. Chou MR, Kreiser D, Taslimi MM, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY. Vaginal versus ultrasound examination of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:521–4. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  48. Management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Practice Bulletin No. 116. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1232–40. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  49. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:192–202. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  50. Larma JD, Silva AM, Holcroft CJ, Thompson RE, Donohue PK, Graham EM. Intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and the identification of metabolic acidosis and hypoxicischemic encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:301.e1–301.e8. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  51. Sameshima H, Ikenoue T. Predictive value of late decelerations for fetal acidemia in unselective low-risk pregnancies. Am J Perinatol 2005;22:19–23. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  52. Sameshima H, Ikenoue T, Ikeda T, Kamitomo M, Ibara S. Unselected low-risk pregnancies and the effect of continuous intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring on umbilical blood gases and cerebral palsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:118–23. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  53. Clark SL, Gimovsky ML, Miller FC. Fetal heart rate response to scalp blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:706–8. [PubMed] ⇦
  54. Clark SL, Gimovsky ML, Miller FC. The scalp stimulation test: a clinical alternative to fetal scalp blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:274–7. [PubMed] ⇦
  55. Cahill AG, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Macones GA. Association and prediction of neonatal acidemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:206.e1–206.e8.[PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  56. Elimian A, Figueroa R, Tejani N. Intrapartum assessment of fetal well-being: a comparison of scalp stimulation with scalp blood pH sampling. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:373–6. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  57. Miyazaki FS, Nevarez F. Saline amnioinfusion for relief of repetitive variable decelerations: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;153:301–6. [PubMed] ⇦
  58. MacGregor SN, Banzhaf WC, Silver RK, Depp R. A prospective, randomized evaluation of intrapartum amnioinfusion. Fetal acid-base status and cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med 1991;36:69–73. [PubMed] ⇦
  59. Strong TH Jr, Hetzler G, Sarno AP, Paul RH. Prophylactic intrapartum amnioinfusion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1370–4; discussion 1374-5. [PubMed] ⇦
  60. Owen J, Henson BV, Hauth JC. A prospective randomized study of saline solution amnioinfusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:1146–9. [PubMed] ⇦
  61. Macri CJ, Schrimmer DB, Leung A, Greenspoon JS, Paul RH. Prophylactic amnioinfusion improves outcome of pregnancy complicated by thick meconium and oligohydramnios. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:117–21. [PubMed] ⇦
  62. Higgins SD, Garite TJ. Late abruptio placenta in trauma patients: implications for monitoring. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:10S–2S. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  63. Ito M, Kawasaki N, Matsui K, Fujisaki S. Fetal heart monitoring and ultrasound in the management of placental abruption. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1986;24:269–73. [PubMed] ⇦
  64. Pearlman MD, Klinich KD, Schneider LW, Rupp J, Moss S, Ashton-Miller J. A comprehensive program to improve safety for pregnant women and fetuses in motor vehicle crashes: a preliminary report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1554–64. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  65. Stewart RD, Bleich AT, Lo JY, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Defining uterine tachysystole: how much is too much? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:290.e1–290.e6. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  66. Cahill AG, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Macones GA. Association of atypical decelerations with acidemia. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:1387–93. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  67. Neilson JP. Fetal electrocardiogram (ECG) for fetal monitoring during labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 5. Art. No.: CD000116. DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD000116.pub4. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  68. Bloom SL, Spong CY, Thom E, Varner MW, Rouse DJ, Weininger S, et al. Fetal pulse oximetry and cesarean delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2195–202. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  69. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001233. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2.[PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  70. Skupski DW, Rosenberg CR, Eglinton GS. Intrapartum fetal stimulation tests: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:129–34. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  71. Nelson KB, Dambrosia JM, Ting TY, Grether JK. Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med 1996;334:613–8. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  72. Fawole B, Hofmeyr GJ. Maternal oxygen administration for fetal distress. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. Art. No.: CD000136. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000136.pub2. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  73. Simpson KR, James DC. Efficacy of intrauterine resuscitation techniques in improving fetal oxygen status during labor. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:1362–8. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  74. Kulier R, Hofmeyr GJ. Tocolytics for suspected intrapartum fetal distress. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000035. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000035. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  75. Garite TJ, Simpson KR. Intrauterine resuscitation during labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2011;54:28–39. [PubMed] ⇦
  76. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:164–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  77. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013;62(2):1–90. ⇦
  78. Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Cheng YW, Lyell DJ, Washington AE. Induction of labor and cesarean delivery by gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:700–5. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  79. Stock SJ, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ 2012;344:e2838. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  80. Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:502.e1–502.e8. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  81. Osmundson SS, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:601–5. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  82. Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW, Jacob L, Nicholson JM, Kaimal A, et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a6a4d0. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  83. Osmundson S, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:583–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  84. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Gienger A, Cheng YW, McDonald KM, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:252–63. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  85. Gülmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P, Heatley E. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD004945. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub3. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  86. Bruckner TA, Cheng YW, Caughey AB. Increased neonatal mortality among normal-weight births beyond 41 weeks of gestation in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:421.e1–421.e7. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  87. Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:76–82. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  88. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD000941. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  89. Delaney S, Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas J, Sparks TN, Paul K, et al. Labor induction with a Foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1239–45. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  90. Carbone JF, Tuuli MG, Fogertey PJ, Roehl KA, Macones GA. Combination of Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:247–52. [PubMed] ⇦
  91. Harper LM, Caughey AB, Odibo AO, Roehl KA, Zhao Q, Cahill AG. Normal progress of induced labor. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:1113–8. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  92. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. Criteria for failed labor induction: prospective evaluation of a standardized protocol. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:671–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  93. Simon CE, Grobman WA. When has an induction failed? Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:705–9. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  94. Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, Varner MW, Spong CY, Ramin SM, et al. Failed labor induction: toward an objective diagnosis. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:267–72. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  95. Lee HC, El-Sayed YY, Gould JB. Population trends in cesarean delivery for breech presentation in the United States, 1997-2003. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:59.e1–59.e8. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  96. Clock C, Kurtzman J, White J, Chung JH. Cesarean risk after successful external cephalic version: a matched, retrospective analysis. J Perinatol 2009;29:96–100. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  97. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:235–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  98. Yoshida M, Matsuda H, Kawakami Y, Hasegawa Y, Yoshinaga Y, Hayata E, et al. Effectiveness of epidural anesthesia for external cephalic version (ECV). J Perinatol 2010;30:580–3. [PubMed] ⇦
  99. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Fetal macrosomia. ACOG Practice Bulletin 22. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2000. ⇦
  100. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA 1996;276:1480–6. [PubMed] ⇦
  101. Little SE, Edlow AG, Thomas AM, Smith NA. Estimated fetal weight by ultrasound: a modifiable risk factor for cesarean delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:309.e1–309.e6. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  102. Stotland NE, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. Gestational weight gain, macrosomia, and risk of cesarean birth in nondiabetic nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:671–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  103. Durie DE, Thornburg LL, Glantz JC. Effect of second-trimester and third-trimester rate of gestational weight gain on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:569–75. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  104. Weight gain during pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 548. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:210–2. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  105. Lee HC, Gould JB, Boscardin WJ, El-Sayed YY, Blumenfeld YJ. Trends in cesarean delivery for twin births in the United States: 1995-2008. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1095–101. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  106. Barrett JF, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, Willan AR, Allen AC, Armson BA, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1295–305. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  107. Sheffield JS, Hill JB, Hollier LM, Laibl VR, Roberts SW, Sanchez PJ, et al. Valacyclovir prophylaxis to prevent recurrent herpes at delivery: a randomized clinical trial [published erratum appears in Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:695]. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:141–7. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  108. Watts DH, Brown ZA, Money D, Selke S, Huang ML, Sacks SL, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of acyclovir in late pregnancy for the reduction of herpes simplex virus shedding and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:836–43. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  109. Little SE, Caughey AB. Acyclovir prophylaxis for pregnant women with a known history of herpes simplex virus: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:1274–9. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  110. Management of herpes in pregnancy. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 82. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:1489–98. [PubMed] [Obstetrics & Gynecology] ⇦
  111. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD003766. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003766.pub5. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  112. Chaillet N, Dumont A. Evidence-based strategies for reducing cesarean section rates: a meta-analysis. Birth 2007;34:53–64.[PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
  113. Murthy K, Grobman WA, Lee TA, Holl JL. Obstetricians’ rising liability insurance premiums and inductions at late preterm gestations. Med Care 2009;47:425–30. [PubMed] ⇦
  114. Yang YT, Mello MM, Subramanian SV, Studdert DM. Relationship between malpractice litigation pressure and rates of cesarean section and vaginal birth after cesarean section. Med Care 2009;47:234–42. [PubMed] [Full Text] ⇦
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Grading System: Grading of Recommendations
Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Recommendations
Obstetric Care Consensus documents will use Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine’s grading approach: http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2813%2900744-8/fulltext. Recommendations are classified as either strong (Grade 1) or weak (Grade 2), and quality of evidence is classified as high (Grade A), moderate (Grade B), and low (Grade C)*. Thus, the recommendations can be 1 of the following 6 possibilities: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C.
Grade of Recommendation Clarity of Risk and Benefit Quality of Supporting Evidence Implications
1A. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa. Consistent evidence from well performed randomized controlled trials or overwhelming evidence of some other form. Further research is unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of benefit and risk. Strong recommendations, can and burdens, or vice versa.  apply to most patients in most circumstances without reservation. Clinicians should follow a strong recommendation unless a clear and compelling rationale for an alternative approach is present.
1B. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa. Evidence from randomized controlled trials with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodologic flaws, indirect or imprecise), or very strong evidence of some other research design. Further research (if performed) is
likely to have an impact on confidence in the estimate of benefit and risk and may change the estimate.		 Strong recommendation, and applies to most patients. Clinicians should follow a strong recommendation unless a clear and compelling rationale for an alternative approach is present.
1C. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence Benefits appear to outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa. Evidence from observational studies, unsystematic clinical experience, or from randomized controlled trials with serious flaws. Any estimate of effect is uncertain. Strong recommendation, and applies to most patients. Some of the evidence base supporting the recommendation is, however, of low quality.
2A. Weak recommendation, high quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens. Consistent evidence from well-performed randomized controlled trials or overwhelming evidence of some other form. Further research is unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of benefit and risk. Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients or societal values.
2B. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence Benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens; some uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burdens. Evidence from randomized controlled trials with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodologic flaws, indirect or imprecise), or very strong evidence of some other research design. Further research (if performed) is likely to have an effect on confidence in the estimate of benefit and risk and may change the estimate. Weak recommendation, alternative approaches likely to be better for some patients under some circumstances.
2C. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burdens; benefits may be closely balanced with risks and burdens. Evidence from observational studies, unsystematic clinical experience, or from randomized controlled trials with serious flaws. Any estimate of effect is uncertain. Very weak recommendation, other alternatives may be equally reasonable
Best practice Recommendation in which either (i) there is enormous amount of indirect evidence that clearly justifies strong recommendation (direct evidence would be challenging, and inefficient use of time and resources, to bring together and carefully summarize), or (ii) recommendation to contrary would be unethical.
Modified from Grading guide. In: UpToDate, Basow, DS (Ed), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2013. Available at: http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-guide. Retrieved October 9, 2013.

*Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. GRADE Working Group. BMJ 2008;336:924–6.

Published concurrently in the March 2014 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Copyright March 2014 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 409 12th Street, SW, PO Box 96920, Washington, DC 20090-6920. All rights reserved.

Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetric Care Consensus No. 1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:693–711.