Talk:Caesarean section

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Caesarean section article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 28 days

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Caesarean section.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine C‑class High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dates

It would be nice to see a date on the statistics here.

"See Also" abortion? and no childbirth?

I have a problem with the "See also" section. First, I don't see how it's appropriate to direct a person to the abortion page for more information, from a page about a procedure used primarily for live delivery either on account of some election or due to complication. Second and connected, there is no link directing the reader to the childbirth page. Childbirth and even pregnancy are far more appropriate than abortion, since C-sections are an option in childbirth, often related to complications or issues in pregnancy. The only connection I see between caesarean sections and abortion is that one rare form of late-term abortion uses similar procedures; this warrants the hysterotomy abortion page having a link to the C-section page, but it does not seem to warrant the C-section page having a link to general abortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.50.240 (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move of content from here to elective caesarean section

I just moved most of the content from the "elective" section to the "elective caesarean section" article. I did this because content was being forked, as the section here and that article were be developed independently. I would propose that as a good start, the lede of that article could be placed here along with a link to that article, so that the basic information on the topic is here but people go to that article as the single source of most information on the subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which text in the ref supports:

"An often overlooked aspect of maternal health is the psychological risks and benefits that a Cesarean birth can have (depending on whether it's an emergency or planned C-section). "
"On the other hand, a planned Cesarean by definition avoids the possibility of the more traumatic difficult vaginal birth (especially agressive obstetric interventions, such as forceps birth"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure the meaning of

"but the risks are different (see below)" thus removed [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Improvement Needed and Ref Question

After I finish the comprehensive exam portion of my dissertation (which is on cesarean section), I am going to commit to fixing this page. It is not well organized, written, or sourced in a number of parts. No offense to whoever wrote this, but it is not based on the current, most robust literature out there.

I had a question regarding this comment - "One surgeon's opinion[who?] is that there is no consistency in this ideal rate, and artificial declarations of an ideal rate should be discouraged."

I'm pretty sure this is the citation that the sentence refers to: Cyr, R. M. (2006). Myth of the ideal cesarean section rate: commentary and historic perspective. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 194(4), 932-936.

If this is the citation that this individual refers to, I suggest that the sentence be reworded. Firstly, Dr. Cyr is an Obstetrician (who performs cesarean section surgery, but is not a surgeon by trade). Secondly, Dr. Cyr does not comment that there is no consistency in the ideal rate, but that it is inappropriate to adhere strict evidence-based guidelines in an artificial study environment to the practice of obstetrics, which relies most on spur-of-the-moment decisions that protect the health of the mother and fetus. Thirdly, Dr. Cyr mentions that the focus should instead be on how to motivate policy (to limit the environment of liability that physicians incur that encourage the performance of C-section with any potential inkling of harm to the mother or more likely, fetus) to encourage obstetricians to make the most appropriate clinical decision for each patient. Whoever is actually summarizing these articles needs to be very careful in how they depict them - there are a lot of inaccuracies or overgeneralizations in this article that need fixing at some point. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]