↓ Skip to main content

Theory of obstetrics: An epidemiologic framework for justifying medically indicated early delivery

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, March 2007
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Theory of obstetrics: An epidemiologic framework for justifying medically indicated early delivery
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, March 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2393-7-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

K S Joseph

Abstract

Modern obstetrics is faced with a serious paradox. Obstetric practice is becoming increasingly interventionist based on empirical evidence but without a theoretical basis for such intervention. Whereas obstetric models of perinatal death show that mortality declines exponentially with increasing gestational duration, temporal increases in medically indicated labour induction and cesarean delivery have resulted in rising rates of preterm birth and declining rates of postterm birth. Other problems include a disconnection between patterns of gestational age-specific growth restriction (constant across gestation) and gestational age-specific perinatal mortality (exponential decline with increasing duration) and the paradox of intersecting perinatal mortality curves (low birth weight infants of smokers have lower neonatal mortality rates than the low birth weight infants of non-smokers).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Researcher 10 12%
Other 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 16 19%