ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2016
External cephalic version experiences in Korea.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2016. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Tocolytic Agents for Successful External Cephalic Version: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Sixteen Randomized Controlled Trials.Balkan medical journal · 2026Article
- External Cephalic Version-A Chance for Vaginal Delivery at Breech Presentation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Observational
- Ritodrine in external cephalic version: is it effective and safe?Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2022Article
- Height of elevated fetal buttock for prediction of successful external cephalic version.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the learning curve for external cephalic version using cumulative sum analysis.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate obstetric outcomes of external cephalic version (ECV) performed at or near term.
methodsSingle pregnant woman with breech presentation at or near term (n=145), who experienced ECV by one obstetrician from November 2009 to July 2014 in our institution were included in the study. Maternal baseline characteristic and fetal ultrasonographic variables were checked before the procedure. After ECV, the delivery outcomes of the women were gathered. Variables affecting the success or failure of ECV were evaluated.
resultsSuccess rate of ECV was 71.0% (n=103). Four variables (parity, amniotic fluid index, fetal spine position and rotational direction) were observed to be in correlation with success or failure of ECV. In contactable 83 individuals experienced successful ECV, cesarean delivery rates were 18.1%, 28.9%, and 5.3% in total, nulliparas, and multiparas, respectively.
conclusionBased on the results, ECV is proposed to be safe for both mother and her fetus. In addition, it is a valuable procedure that increases probability of vaginal delivery for women with breech presentation.
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.