Prediction models for successful external cephalic version: a systematic review

被引:25
作者
Velzel, Joost [1 ]
de Hundt, Marcella [2 ]
Mulder, Frederique M. [1 ]
Molkenboer, Jan F. M. [3 ]
Van der Post, Joris A. M. [1 ]
Mol, Ben W. [4 ]
Kok, Marjolein [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Acad Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Spaarne Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Hoofddorp, Netherlands
[4] Univ Adelaide, Sch Paediat & Reprod Hlth, Robinson Res Inst, South Australian Hlth & Med Res Inst, Adelaide, SA, Australia
关键词
External cephalic version; Breech presentation; Prediction model; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN DELIVERY; TERM; NETHERLANDS; OUTCOMES; SECTION; TRIAL; RISKS; BIRTH; RATES;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.10.007
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
To provide an overview of existing prediction models for successful ECV, and to assess their quality, development and performance. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify all articles reporting on prediction models for successful ECV published from inception to January 2015. We extracted information on study design, sample size, model-building strategies and validation. We evaluated the phases of model development and summarized their performance in terms of discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness. We collected different predictor variables together with their defined significance, in order to identify important predictor variables for successful ECV. We identified eight articles reporting on seven prediction models. All models were subjected to internal validation. Only one model was also validated in an external cohort. Two prediction models had a low overall risk of bias, of which only one showed promising predictive performance at internal validation. This model also completed the phase of external validation. For none of the models their impact on clinical practice was evaluated. The most important predictor variables for successful ECV described in the selected articles were parity, placental location, breech engagement and the fetal head being palpable. One model was assessed using discrimination and calibration using internal (AUC 0.71) and external validation (AUC 0.64), while two other models were assessed with discrimination and calibration, respectively. We found one prediction model for breech presentation that was validated in an external cohort and had acceptable predictive performance. This model should be used to council women considering ECV. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:160 / 167
页数:8
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   External cephalic version: Predictors of success [J].
Aisenbrey, GA ;
Catanzarite, VA ;
Nelson, C .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1999, 94 (05) :783-786
[2]   Rates of caesarean section:: analysis of global, regional and national estimates [J].
Betran, Ana P. ;
Merialdi, Mario ;
Lauer, Jeremy A. ;
Bing-Shun, Wang ;
Thomas, Jane ;
Van Look, Paul ;
Wagner, Marsden .
PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 21 (02) :98-113
[3]   Clinical score for the outcome of external cephalic version: A two-phase prospective study [J].
Burgos, Jorge ;
Cobos, Patricia ;
Rodriguez, Leire ;
Ignacio Pijoan, Jose ;
Fernandez-Llebrez, Luis ;
Martinez-Astorquiza, Txanton ;
Carlos Melchor, Juan .
AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2012, 52 (01) :59-61
[4]   A prospective study of the factors associated with the success rate of external cephalic version for breech presentation at term [J].
Burgos, Jorge ;
Carlos Melchor, Juan ;
Ignacio Pijoan, Jose ;
Cobos, Patricia ;
Fernandez-Llebrez, Luis ;
Martinez-Astorquiza, Txanton .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2011, 112 (01) :48-51
[5]  
Caukwell S, 2002, J Obstet Gynaecol, V22, P486
[6]   External cephalic version: a safe procedure? A systematic review of version-related risks [J].
Collaris, RJ ;
Oei, SG .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2004, 83 (06) :511-518
[7]   The complications of external cephalic version: results from 805 consecutive attempts [J].
Collins, S. ;
Ellaway, P. ;
Harrington, D. ;
Pandit, M. ;
Impey, L. W. M. .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2007, 114 (05) :636-638
[8]   External Validation of a Prediction Model for Successful External Cephalic Version [J].
De Hundt, Marcella ;
Vlemmix, Floortje ;
Kok, Marjolein ;
Van Der Steeg, Jan W. ;
Bais, Joke M. ;
Mol, Ben W. ;
Van Der Post, Joris A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2012, 29 (03) :231-236
[9]   Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial [J].
Hannah, ME ;
Hannah, WJ ;
Hewson, SA ;
Hodnett, ED ;
Saigal, S ;
Willan, AR .
LANCET, 2000, 356 (9239) :1375-1383
[10]   Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews [J].
Hayden, JA ;
Côté, P ;
Bombardier, C .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2006, 144 (06) :427-437