This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Delivery after previous caesarean section.
|
The text is identical to the section in the caesarean section article. This article is redundant. - Juansmith 22:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the section on the incision for caesarian section. It seems to conflate the incision in the abdominal wall with the one made in the uterus. It is also misleading in its reference to to the strength of the scar after a lower-segment C section. This scar is safer than the scar of a classic C section because of its location, but it is still a weakpoint in the uterine wall. I have deleted some sentences which seem to advocate VBAC. The decision to try or not to try a VBAC is a serious one, those offering advice to the lay readers who are likely to read this page should offer factual information rather than opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigongos ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh more pov people. Geni 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit (due to insufficient knowledge), but this all seems very specific (particularly in terminology) to US medical practice, and I suspect that there are significant geographical variations. Purely anecdotally (I witnessed the VBAC delivery of my daughter last week) the UK NHS seems much more relaxed about VBAC than the attitudes implied by the general tone of this article. Blufive ( talk) 21:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues, including mislabeled lists, disorganization, and an extremely lengthy introductory section before the table of contents. Discussion on its formatting and necessity should be reopen. I tagged it as needing cleanup. 76.21.201.31 ( talk) 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I tried to do some clean up this morning. Basically, there were several things presented as hard fact that don't represent the official recommendations of the NIH, ACOG, CDC, etc., relating to labor induction, uterine scar thickness measurement, VBAC pregnancy post-due date, etc. There were two separate history/trend-related sections, so I tried to consolidate them and back it up with statistics and to highlight that there is one scientific paper accepted to have served as the entire turning point in VBAC access in 1996. I also tried to clarify and reference eligibility criteria and management strategies and mention that they are not identical across all providers and facilities. Basically, people should be able to read this article and get a good overview of VBAC facts with references and not be misled into thinking certain criteria are set in stone. ScienceGalKK ( talk) 15:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The article states that VBAC is incredibly risky and declining, while simultaneously hinting it might be safe. NPOV is one thing, but this is just weaseling out of the controversy. 128.97.244.205 ( talk) 03:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, the edits have clarified that VBAC is not actually risky, that it has one risk (uterine rupture) and is actually a recommended and acceptable way of birth for most women with previous cesareans despite some roadblocks put in place by hospitals. In reality, there IS a disconnect between how safe VBAC is considered by medical experts (pretty safe) and how it is seen by many hospitals and some in the public (unsafe). ScienceGalKK ( talk) 16:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
One of the first 3 links gave me a virus so I deleted all three:
The result of the move request was: moved. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Vaginal birth after caesarean → Delivery after previous Caesarean section – The article is practically about whether to aim for a vaginal birth after previous Caesarean, or to perform an elective repeat Caesarean section. Hence, the current naming is not as wp:NPOV as it can be. There is currently no clear place to add information about elective repeat Caesarean section, and it would be redundant to have another article comparing the two choices, since we already have that in both Vaginal birth after caesarean and Caesarean section#Subsequent pregnancies. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 16:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence because it doesn't say what situation it is compared to:
I also removed the following sentence, because it is essential to compare ERCS with intention to perform VBAC, because if you leave out those who end up with a Caesarean anyway, including ones done in emergency, you'll inevitably make VBAC look more favorable:
The following sentence does not really belong in this article, but in the general Caesarean section article:
Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Delivery after previous caesarean section.
|
The text is identical to the section in the caesarean section article. This article is redundant. - Juansmith 22:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the section on the incision for caesarian section. It seems to conflate the incision in the abdominal wall with the one made in the uterus. It is also misleading in its reference to to the strength of the scar after a lower-segment C section. This scar is safer than the scar of a classic C section because of its location, but it is still a weakpoint in the uterine wall. I have deleted some sentences which seem to advocate VBAC. The decision to try or not to try a VBAC is a serious one, those offering advice to the lay readers who are likely to read this page should offer factual information rather than opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigongos ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh more pov people. Geni 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to edit (due to insufficient knowledge), but this all seems very specific (particularly in terminology) to US medical practice, and I suspect that there are significant geographical variations. Purely anecdotally (I witnessed the VBAC delivery of my daughter last week) the UK NHS seems much more relaxed about VBAC than the attitudes implied by the general tone of this article. Blufive ( talk) 21:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This article has multiple issues, including mislabeled lists, disorganization, and an extremely lengthy introductory section before the table of contents. Discussion on its formatting and necessity should be reopen. I tagged it as needing cleanup. 76.21.201.31 ( talk) 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I tried to do some clean up this morning. Basically, there were several things presented as hard fact that don't represent the official recommendations of the NIH, ACOG, CDC, etc., relating to labor induction, uterine scar thickness measurement, VBAC pregnancy post-due date, etc. There were two separate history/trend-related sections, so I tried to consolidate them and back it up with statistics and to highlight that there is one scientific paper accepted to have served as the entire turning point in VBAC access in 1996. I also tried to clarify and reference eligibility criteria and management strategies and mention that they are not identical across all providers and facilities. Basically, people should be able to read this article and get a good overview of VBAC facts with references and not be misled into thinking certain criteria are set in stone. ScienceGalKK ( talk) 15:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The article states that VBAC is incredibly risky and declining, while simultaneously hinting it might be safe. NPOV is one thing, but this is just weaseling out of the controversy. 128.97.244.205 ( talk) 03:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, the edits have clarified that VBAC is not actually risky, that it has one risk (uterine rupture) and is actually a recommended and acceptable way of birth for most women with previous cesareans despite some roadblocks put in place by hospitals. In reality, there IS a disconnect between how safe VBAC is considered by medical experts (pretty safe) and how it is seen by many hospitals and some in the public (unsafe). ScienceGalKK ( talk) 16:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
One of the first 3 links gave me a virus so I deleted all three:
The result of the move request was: moved. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Vaginal birth after caesarean → Delivery after previous Caesarean section – The article is practically about whether to aim for a vaginal birth after previous Caesarean, or to perform an elective repeat Caesarean section. Hence, the current naming is not as wp:NPOV as it can be. There is currently no clear place to add information about elective repeat Caesarean section, and it would be redundant to have another article comparing the two choices, since we already have that in both Vaginal birth after caesarean and Caesarean section#Subsequent pregnancies. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 16:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence because it doesn't say what situation it is compared to:
I also removed the following sentence, because it is essential to compare ERCS with intention to perform VBAC, because if you leave out those who end up with a Caesarean anyway, including ones done in emergency, you'll inevitably make VBAC look more favorable:
The following sentence does not really belong in this article, but in the general Caesarean section article:
Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)