Skip to main content


Erratum to: The DiAMOND trial protocol: A randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous caesarean section [ISRCTN84367722]

Article metrics

  • 2681 Accesses

  • 3 Citations

The original article was published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2004 4:25

In the economic evaluation section of the protocol [1], we stated that secondary care contacts would be coded according to Healthcare Resource Group (HRG). This has not been possible as HRGs are not routinely recorded in all of the recruiting hospitals, and have proved unreliable among the hospitals that do. Deliveries will instead be coded as 'normal', 'assisted', 'elective caesarean section', or 'emergency caesarean section' according to each patient's hospital record.

A further issue is that the Office of Scottish Health Statistics does not provide cost estimates for different types of delivery. Although costs in Scotland have been estimated using data collected in the early 1990s [2], we consider there to be substantial limitations in applying these costs to the current study. The economic evaluation will therefore apply English costs to the English data, and will investigate in sensitivity analyses the consequences of both applying English costs to, and excluding, the Scottish data.


  1. 1.

    Montgomery AA, the DiAMOND study group: The DiAMOND trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous caesarean section [ISRCTN84367722]. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2004, 4: 25-10.1186/1471-2393-4-25.

  2. 2.

    Petrou S, Glazener C: The economic costs of alternative modes of delivery during the first two months postpartum: results from a Scottish observational study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2002, 109: 214-217. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01032.x.

Pre-publication history

  1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Alan A Montgomery.

Additional information

The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1186/1471-2393-4-25

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article