Mothering Forum banner

More fun calculators

673 Views 12 Replies 12 Participants Last post by  momsmyjob
C-Section predictor. What are everyone's thoughts on this one? Bunch of hooey or accurate?

http://www.ise.ufl.edu/rmfe/projects...Enscrpited.htm

Hmm. Actually I did this and then read the directions again and it looks like this is for first babies. Ah well.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
I'm too scared, I don't want to play with it!
First of all it wouldn't work for me - second, as a Doula, I think it's a load of crap.
Ha.. it gave me a 15.6% chance based on my daughter's stats.
I did it for my first pregnancy and for this one. I filled in all fields except for the fetal weight cause I don't do grams. I had a 20% chance of a section with my first (but isn't that pretty close to the national average anyway????) and with this one (granted I'm 36 rather than 28) it had me at over 27% chance of a section.

Considering that my first baby was 8lb 5oz, 22 inches long and the second and third babies were 9 pounds and 22 inches and I carried them and delivered them from my 5 ft, 2 inch, 110 pound (pre-pregnancy weight) frame with no problems, I find it hard to believe that I have a nearly 30% chance of a section this time around.

I think it's total hooey!!!
I vote it's a bunch of hooey. I entered my info with Max, even converted the pounds to grams! Said I have a 21.9% chance of C-sect and 12.7% chance of Cephophalic(sp?) disproportion. Max fit just fine. No CPD here.
Seemed like mine was kinda high. I did it for Emma and it was 24.8% of section and 13,9% chance of CPD. Neither was ever a consideration. Particularly not CPD. I have a roomy pelvis.
It wouldn't work for me either. I'm glad because I didn't want to see the results, but I was morbidly curious.
Quote:

Originally Posted by SillyMommy
First of all it wouldn't work for me - second, as a Doula, I think it's a load of crap.
uh, yea... unless it has fields for midwife/OB, home/hospital, previous births, etc etc. Hey, *I* can predict better than those factors
See less See more
Hmm, well, It wouldn't be accurate for me because it only went up to 4500 grams, and DS was a bit more than that, but if he *was* 4500 g it was a 50% chance of CS, and a 40-something% of CPD (neither of which happened)
I vote it's a bunch of hooey/crap whatever way you want to describe it. OBs tend to get weirded out by maternal age, obesity, etc, so if you have an OB and one of those things then sure your chances go up. But if you have an OB without any of those risk factors your chances go up. OB's are surgeons. Plain and simple.

I had a c/s with #1 and it said my risk was 25% for c/s, 8% for CPD. I VBAC'd with #2 and it said my risk was 36% for c/s and 24% for CPD.
Quote:

Originally Posted by kstsmith
OBs tend to get weirded out by maternal age, obesity, etc, so if you have an OB and one of those things then sure your chances go up. But if you have an OB without any of those risk factors your chances go up. OB's are surgeons. Plain and simple.
Yeah, that's sort of what I was wondering. Not that there's an actual *medical* reason for chances of c-section going up, but that, given the factors they asked about and OB tendencies to ... well, discriminate, for lack of a better word... based on those criteria, someone's chances of a section might actually go up under the care of an OB due to bias alone
See less See more
I have a pretty high rate, but have never had a c section, even though my last 2 were 10lbs 1oz and 11lbs. 13 ozs.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top