ReviewFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2013
Improving external cephalic version for foetal breech presentation.
Review in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Addressing the urgent need for external cephalic version training and promotion: a survey on theoretical course and practical workshops participants" - a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- A prospective study using an individualized nomogram to predict the success rate of external cephalic version.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Influence of the external cephalic version attempt on the Cesarean section rate: experience of a type 3 maternity hospital in France.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
- Article
- Successful external cephalic version: factors predicting vaginal birth.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIf success rate of external cephalic version (ECV) increases, the rate of primary caesarean sections -declines. The aims of this retrospective cohort study were to evaluate the ECV and to identify factors associated with the success rate of ECV for breech presentation at term. The second aim of this study was to analyse the outcome of labour of all patients with a foetus in breech near term.
methodsAll women with a foetus in breech near or at term were included. Logistic regression analyses were -performed to identify the association between patient characteristics and success rate of ECV.
resultsThe overall rate of successful ECV's was 19%. Foetal and maternal complications after ECV were negligible. BMI, type of breech and amount of amniotic fluid were significantly correlated with a successful ECV. The rate of primary caesarean sections for the group of patients who underwent an ECV was lower than the rate in the group who did not (52.9% vs. 79.6%). The rate of spontaneous deliveries was increased after ECV (36% versus 12%). After successful ECV the rate of spontaneous deliveries was 75%; after unsuccessful ECV 26.8%.
conclusionThe overall rate of successful ECV was low (19%). BMI, type of breech and amount of amniotic fluid were significantly correlated with a successful ECV. The rate of primary caesarean sections was significantly lower in patients with ECV (52.9% versus 79.6%). The rate of spontaneous deliveries was significantly higher (36% -versus 12%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
24753933PMC3987362W2197439449What 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.