PlacekPJTaffelSM. Recent patterns in cesarean delivery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am1988; 15: 607–27
2.
WebsterLADalingJRMcFarlaneCAshleyDWarrenCW. Prevalence and determinants of cesarean section in Jamaica. J Biosoc Sci1992; 24: 515–25
3.
SailiASarnaMSHaldarDKumariSDuttaAK. Delayed cesarean section: neonatal outcome. Ind Pediat1990; 27: 601–4
4.
Uribarren-BerruetaOEvangelista-SalazarC. Cesarean section: frequency and indications. Ginecol Obstet Mexico1993; 61: 168–70
5.
BarbaraKwast. Obstructed labour: its contribution to maternal mortality. Midwifery1992; 8: 3–7
6.
KennedyJLGreenwaldE. Correlation of shoe size and obstetric outcome: an anthropometric study. Am J Obs Gynec1981; 140: 466–7
7.
FrameSMooreJPetersAHallD. Maternal height and shoe size as predictors of pelvic disproportion: an assessment. Br J Obs Gynaec1985; 92: 1239–45
8.
Kasongo Project Team. Antenatal screening for fetopelvic dystocias. A cost effective approach to the choice of simple indicators for use by auxiliary personnel. J Trop Med Hyg1984; 87: 173–83
9.
LiljestrandJBergstromSNdobeCDaSilvaBHernborgA. Obstetrical risk factors and pregnancy outcome in rural Mozambique. Gynec Obstet Invest1992; 34: 217–21
10.
OjoOABriggsEB. A Textbook for Midwives in the Tropics, 2nd edn.English Language Book Society, 1982: 21
11.
NoelCameron. The Measurement of Human Growth. London: Croom Helm, 1984: 55
12.
MarriottFH. The Interpretation of Multiple Observations. London: Academic Press, 1984
