Assessing the regional policies of Italian regions in managing the Cesarean delivery phenomenon: a fractal analysis. Fractal statistic and Cesarean section.

Main Article Content

Ugo Indraccolo
Beatrice Bianchi
Chiara Borghi
Pantaleo Greco


Cesarean section, hospital policies, fractal statistic.


Objectives. Assessing the 2017 administrative data on Cesareans delivery in Italy by using fractal statistic.Methods. 2017 administrative data on Italian Cesarean deliveries are freely available as crude numbers and rates according to each Italian region, according to Italian health institute type and according to first or repeated Cesarean. As already reported, the Italian Cesarean delivery phenomenon is in relationship with hospital, regional, cultural perspectives in caring pregnancy and delivery. Fractal statistics can best assess the biocomplexity underlying the Italian Cesarean section phenomenon. Fractal shapes and self-organized criticality of the Cesarean section phenomenon for each Italian region were done. Fractal shapes were compared to find similarities by using global test of coincidence among regression lines. Results. In the regions where the health care institutes are more than a type, there are evanescent similar fractal shapes. Self-organized criticality assessment demonstrates that chaos is largely involved in Cesarean delivery phenomenon in all Italian regions and in Italy. The fractal images for each region are able to highlight the item causing the deviation from fractal shapes in each region. Conclusion. Fractal statistics could be used to compare regional or hospital policies in performing Cesareans, starting from Cesareans rates extracted from administrative data.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...
Abstract 31 | PDF Downloads 17


1. AOGOI Associazione Ostetrici Ginecologi Ospedalieri Italiani [Internet].Milano: Un parto su tre col cesareo e nel privato sono il 50%. Nel 2017 ancora attivi 117 punti nascita con meno di 500 parti l'anno, sono il 25% del totale e dovevano essere chiusi dal 2010 [cited 2019 May 24]. Available from
2. Euro-Peristat [Internet]: The European perinatal health report 2010 [cited 2019 may 24]. Available from
3. WHO/RHR/15.02. WHO statement on caesarean section rate [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015 [cited 2019 May 24]. Available from;jsessionid=B494182D57E09E015E02B14B597019EB?sequence=1
4. Senato della Repubblica [Internet]: Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sugli errori in campo sanitario e sulle cause dei disavanzi sanitari regionali. Relazione sui punti nascita [cited 2019 May 24]. Available from leg17/file/repository/relazioni/libreria/novita/XVI_ Indagine_NascereSicuri/documenti%20appendice%20 documento%20conclusivo/13.relazione%20sui%20 punti%20nascita%20cominchiesta.pdf
5. Indraccolo U, Scutiero G, Matteo M, Indraccolo SR, Greco P. Cesarean section on maternal request: should be formally prohibited in Italy? Ann Ist Sup Sanita 2015; 51: 162-166.
6. Verteramo R, Picarelli V, Labianco S, et al. Vaginal deliveries after Cesarean section: heterogeneity of outcome according to the hospital policies in Italy. It J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 31: 7-12.
7. Glattre E, Nygård JF. Fractal meta-analysis and 'causality' embedded in complexity: advanced understanding of disease etiology. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci 2004; 8: 315-344.
8. Quigley J, Revie M, Dawson J. Estimating risk when zero events have been observed. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22: 1042-1043.
9. Baldado M, Padua R, Adanza JG, Panduyos JB. Statistical analysis of fractal observations: applications in education and poverty estimation. SDSSU Multidisciplinary Research Journal 2013; 1: 41-49.
10. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Encoding the effect size statistic. In: Lipsey MW and Wilson DB (eds) Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications Inc; 2001, pp.34-72.
11. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev 2001; 12: 23-39.
12. Torloni MR, Betran AP, Souza JP, et al. Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011; 6: e14566.
13. Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, et al. Use of Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Global Health 2015; 3: e260-e270.
14. Indraccolo U, Calabrese S, Di Iorio R, Corosu L, Marinoni E, Indraccolo SR. Impact of the medicalization of labour on mode of delivery. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2010; 37: 273-277.
15. Lundgren I, Smith V, Nilsson C, et al. Clinician-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 16.
16. Indraccolo U, Iannicco AM, Buccioni M, Micucci G. Dangers and expenses of a first-level Obstetrics facility: a serious Italian concern. It J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 27: 121-124.
17. Han KT, Kim SJ, Ju YJ, Choi JW, Park EC. Do hospital characteristics influence Cesarean delivery? Analysis of National Health Insurance claim data. Eur J Public Health 2017; 27: 801-807.
18. Kozhimannil KB, Acaya MC, Subramanian SV. Maternal clinical diagnoses and hospital variation in the risk of cesarean delivery: analyses of a national US hospital discharge database. PLoS Med 2014; 11: e1001745
19. Cáceres IA, Arcaya M, Declerq E, et al. Hospital differences in cesarean deliveries in Massachusetts (US) 2004-2006: the case against case-mix artifact. PLoS one 2013; 8: e57817.
20. Davoli M, Colais P, Fusco D. Give birth in Italy is a “surgical” procedure. Recenti Prog Med 2016; 107: 559-561.
21. Indraccolo U. Punches and knocks to the physicians: choosing wisely or self protection? Recenti Prog Med 2016; 107: 607-608.
22. Vimercati A, Greco P, Kardashi A, et al. Choice of cesarean section and perception of legal pressure. J Perinat Med 2000; 28: 111-117.
23. Lagrew DC, Low LK, Brennan R, et al. National partnership for maternal safety: consensus bundle on safe reduction of primary cesarean births-supporting intended vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131: 503-513.