ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2010
Cost-effectiveness of external cephalic version for term breech presentation.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Talcum powder or aqueous gel to aid external cephalic version: a randomised controlled trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2014Trial
- Comparison of Tocolytic Agents for Successful External Cephalic Version: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Sixteen Randomized Controlled Trials.Balkan medical journal · 2026Article
- PRE-ECV Score: Validation of a Pre-Specified Tool for Predicting the Success of External Cephalic Version at Term-Proof of Concept.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of open fetal, fetoscopic and postnatal surgical repair for open spina bifida: decision analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025Article
- A prospective study using an individualized nomogram to predict the success rate of external cephalic version.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Clinical analysis of 40 cases of external cephalic version without anesthesia.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Reviving external cephalic version: a review of its efficacy, safety, and technical aspects.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2019Review
- Factors Associated with Attempted External Cephalic Version for Fetal Malpresentation at Term.AJP reports · 2019Article
- Screening for breech presentation using universal late-pregnancy ultrasonography: A prospective cohort study and cost effectiveness analysis.PLoS medicine · 2019Observational
- Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Intraoperative Cell Salvage for Obstetric Hemorrhage.Anesthesiology · 2018Article
- Uptake of external cephalic version for term breech presentation: an Australian population study, 2002-2012.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
- Evaluation of the learning curve for external cephalic version using cumulative sum analysis.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2017Article
- Maternal outcomes of term breech presentation delivery: impact of successful external cephalic version in a nationwide sample of delivery admissions in the United States.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2016Article
- Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2015Article
- Coming out ahead: the cost effectiveness of external cephalic version using spinal anesthesia.Israel journal of health policy research · 2014Article
- Reducing the cesarean delivery rates for breech presentations: administration of spinal anesthesia facilitates manipulation to cephalic presentation, but is it cost saving?Israel journal of health policy research · 2014Article
- A qualitative interview study exploring pregnant women's and health professionals' attitudes to external cephalic version.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2013Article
- Regional anesthesia for external cephalic version: its time has come.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExternal cephalic version (ECV) is recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to convert a breech fetus to vertex position and reduce the need for cesarean delivery. The goal of this study was to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, from society's perspective, of ECV compared to scheduled cesarean for term breech presentation.
methodsA computer-based decision model (TreeAge Pro 2008, Tree Age Software, Inc.) was developed for a hypothetical base case parturient presenting with a term singleton breech fetus with no contraindications for vaginal delivery. The model incorporated actual hospital costs (e.g., $8,023 for cesarean and $5,581 for vaginal delivery), utilities to quantify health-related quality of life, and probabilities based on analysis of published literature of successful ECV trial, spontaneous reversion, mode of delivery, and need for unanticipated emergency cesarean delivery. The primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per quality-adjusted year of life gained. A threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) was used to determine cost-effectiveness.
resultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness of ECV, assuming a baseline 58% success rate, equaled $7,900/QALY. If the estimated probability of successful ECV is less than 32%, then ECV costs more to society and has poorer QALYs for the patient. However, as the probability of successful ECV was between 32% and 63%, ECV cost more than cesarean delivery but with greater associated QALY such that the cost-effectiveness ratio was less than $50,000/QALY. If the probability of successful ECV was greater than 63%, the computer modeling indicated that a trial of ECV is less costly and with better QALYs than a scheduled cesarean. The cost-effectiveness of a trial of ECV is most sensitive to its probability of success, and not to the probabilities of a cesarean after ECV, spontaneous reversion to breech, successful second ECV trial, or adverse outcome from emergency cesarean.
conclusionsFrom society's perspective, ECV trial is cost-effective when compared to a scheduled cesarean for breech presentation provided the probability of successful ECV is > 32%. Improved algorithms are needed to more precisely estimate the likelihood that a patient will have a successful ECV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.