Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23076883›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

External cephalic version for breech presentation at term.

G Justus Hofmeyr, Regina Kulier

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. External Cephalic Version: A Dying Art Worth Reviving.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. External cephalic version experiences in Korea.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2016
    Article
  14. Management of breech presentation at term: a retrospective cohort study of 10 years of experience.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2015
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

G Justus HofmeyrDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, East London Hospital Complex, University of the Witwatersrand, University of FortHare, Eastern Cape Department of Health, East London, South Africa. justhof@gmail.com.
Regina Kulier
Western Cape Department of Health · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManagement of breech presentation is controversial, particularly in regard to manipulation of the position of the fetus by external cephalic version (ECV). ECV may reduce the number of breech presentations and caesarean sections, but there also have been reports of complications with the procedure.

objectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of ECV at or near term on measures of pregnancy outcome. Methods of facilitating ECV, and ECV before term are reviewed separately. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (7 August 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of ECV at or near term (with or without tocolysis) compared with no attempt at ECV in women with breech presentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted the data. MAIN

resultsWe included seven studies. The pooled data from these studies show a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in non-cephalic birth (seven trials, 1245 women; risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.66; and caesarean section (seven trials, 1245 women; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) when ECV was attempted. There were no significant differences in the incidence of Apgar score ratings below seven at one minute (two trials, 108 women; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.89) or five minutes (four trials, 368 women; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.77), low umbilical artery pH levels (one trial, 52 women; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.44), neonatal admission (one trial, 52 women; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.24), perinatal death (six trials, 1053 women; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.12), nor time from enrolment to delivery (2 trials, 256 women; weighted mean difference -0.25 days, 95% CI -2.81 to 2.31). AUTHORS'

conclusionsAttempting cephalic version at term reduces the chance of non-cephalic births and caesarean section. There is not enough evidence from randomised trials to assess complications of external cephalic version at term. Large observational studies suggest that complications are rare.

Indexed as

Breech PresentationTerm BirthCesarean SectionFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVersion, Fetal

Identifiers

PMID23076883
OpenAlexW4248528897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.