new study on c-section births

This morning I found a large article in our paper about c-sections, and since I may be having one in a few months I immediately read it. I don't know what I really think about it but I thought that I would share the link with you all if anyone else is interested in reading it. Cheers

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article742599.ece

 

I think the medicalization of birth can bring with it many unusual reprecussions that we have yet to realize. So in general, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if this were true...however, the study only used 16 c/s babies and 21 natural babies...that seems like much too small a sample to be statistically viable. I'm not a scientist, but it would seem to me that it should be a much larger study group than that?

 

I totally agree the sample is much to small, the article in our morning paper was much longer and it was in Swedish, so I couldn't post it, I just googled one to find something in English. The initial article I read (in Swedish) said this was an initial study and more research would be generated because of this discovery all over the world. It will be very interesting to see what they find, it could change the way we give birth in a major way. I am sure that c-sections will continued to be necessary and in many cases lifesaving, but the elective c-section may become less popular if what they are saying is true.

 

QUOTE(faerieprncs @ Jul 1 2009, 12:36 AM) [snapback]1376581[/snapback]
<snip>however, the study only used 16 c/s babies and 21 natural babies...that seems like much too small a sample to be statistically viable. I'm not a scientist, but it would seem to me that it should be a much larger study group than that?


I totally agree with the above. Being a scientist myself (though I don't study humans but horses), that is an EXTREMELY small sample size. The article does also mention that the values were the same as vaginially delivered babies within days - that doesn't say to me that there were significant changes. What differences they did see could have been due purely to chance or other circumstances. For instance, why were those 16 babies born via CS? Maybe they were already having problems in utero - that could explain the differences in the cord blood right there. I'd want to see the study design before worrying about the conclusions reached.

 

What worried me was that there is a correlation between c-sections and future health problems, that is already established and this was just a potential explination of why.... I had never heard of these before, and since all of us here are not able to 100% choose a vaginal birth, I'm wondering why that info was not avaliabe or more wide spread?

 

QUOTE(arkie @ Jul 1 2009, 01:09 PM) [snapback]1376802[/snapback]
What worried me was that there is a correlation between c-sections and future health problems, that is already established and this was just a potential explination of why.... I had never heard of these before, and since all of us here are not able to 100% choose a vaginal birth, I'm wondering why that info was not avaliabe or more wide spread?


Yeah but you have to remember there are a lot of c/s babies who are born via emergency c/s due to pre-existing health conditions which cause the c/s... So it's a question of what comes first the chicken or the egg?? Babies with prior health problems are much more likely to be born via c/s. So there would naturally be a correlation there.

 

Exactly what I thought when I read this . . . same as I think when people quote higher numbers of complications and health problems resulting from c-sections. In most cases there's usually an underlying reason why c-sections are being performed anyway so is it the c section or the issue that necessitated a c-section in the first place that causes the problems/changes. Very speculative and inconclusive.

 

Hee. Could have saved myself the trouble of typing if I had just read your post first.