title: The intelligence quotient of school aged children delivered by cesarean section and vaginal delivery.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There has always been an asking question with physicians and health staff whether delivery mode can effect on child intelligence. This study was conducted to compare the intelligence quotient (IQ) of school aged children delivered by cesarean section and vaginal delivery in Mashhad, Iran.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study conducted in two stages; a cross-sectional section in which 5000 randomly selected children, who were 6-7 years old, attended at 10 Cognitive Examination Posts in Mashhad. The examination was performed by the Exceptional Education and Training Institute affiliated to Ministry of Education for all 6-7 years old children at the entry to the primary school. At the second stage, we selected two matched groups of 189 children who delivered by cesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery and then compared their IQ scores.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The cesarean delivery group had significantly higher IQ test scores. Maternal and paternal educational levels were related to children's IQ scores. After adjusting of maternal and paternal education, maternal age and parity, there was not any significant difference between IQ scores of cesarean delivery and natural vaginal delivery groups 101(3.67) vs. 100.7(4.28).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Based on our findings, the association between cesarean deliveries with better cognitive development in children cannot be supported.
authors: Associated Professor and Head of Women's Health Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
authors: Nayereh
authors: N
authors: Khadem
authors: Talaat
authors: T
authors: Khadivzadeh
references: Psychol Rep. 1992 Feb;70(1):27-30
references: 1565731
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Feb;105(2):301-6
references: 15684156
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1993 Nov;52(1):5-10
references: 8119476
references: BJOG. 2006 Nov;113(11):1253-8
references: 17014679
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004 Feb;83(2):180-6
references: 14756737
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1985;64(4):323-5
references: 4024881
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001 Jul;97(1):23-5
references: 11435003
references: Birth. 2008 Jun;35(2):121-8
references: 18507583
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jan;105(1):4-11
references: 15625134
references: Med J Aust. 1979 Apr 21;1(8):301-4
references: 449802
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001 Jul;97(1):17-9
references: 11435001
references: Obstet Gynecol. 1991 May;77(5):653-8
references: 2014074
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Nov;169(5):1091-5
references: 8238165
references: Birth. 2007 Mar;34(1):32-41
references: 17324176
references: Lancet. 1991 Jun 29;337(8757):1583-5
references: 1675719
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Apr;105(4):751-6
references: 15802401
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Dec 10;111(2):164-6
references: 14597245
references: Rev Saude Publica. 2006 Apr;40(2):226-32
references: 16583032
references: Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1979 Oct;183(5):375-83
references: 543186