Giulia M. Muraca, PhD - Key considerations when comparing outcomes by

Letter to the Editor

Giulia M Muraca, Neda Razaz
Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 191(33), 2019, pp. E923

Cite

APA Click to copy
Muraca, G. M., & Razaz, N. (2019). Key considerations when comparing outcomes by mode of delivery raise questions about study validity and clinical relevance. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 191(33), E923. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.72687

Chicago/Turabian Click to copy
Muraca, Giulia M, and Neda Razaz. “Key Considerations When Comparing Outcomes by Mode of Delivery Raise Questions about Study Validity and Clinical Relevance.” Canadian Medical Association Journal 191, no. 33 (2019): E923.

MLA Click to copy
Muraca, Giulia M., and Neda Razaz. “Key Considerations When Comparing Outcomes by Mode of Delivery Raise Questions about Study Validity and Clinical Relevance.” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 191, no. 33, 2019, p. E923, doi:10.1503/cmaj.72687.

BibTeX Click to copy

@article{giulia2019a,
  title = {Key considerations when comparing outcomes by mode of delivery raise questions about study validity and clinical relevance},
  year = {2019},
  issue = {33},
  journal = {Canadian Medical Association Journal},
  pages = {E923},
  volume = {191},
  doi = {10.1503/cmaj.72687},
  author = {Muraca, Giulia M and Razaz, Neda}
}

Abstract

In their CMAJ article, Korb and colleagues[1][1] investigated the important and complex issue of cesarean delivery and subsequent severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM). Observational studies comparing maternal and perinatal outcomes following vaginal and cesarean delivery have been criticized for