Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28358979›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at or near term for deciding on mode of delivery.

Robert C Pattinson, Anna Cuthbert, Valerie Vannevel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Magnetic resonance imaging pelvimetric measurements as predictors for emergent cesarean delivery in obstructed labor.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Pelvic inlet area is associated with birth mode.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023
    Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Robert C PattinsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Pretoria, Kalafong Hospital, Private Bag X396, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa, 0001.
Anna CuthbertCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
Valerie VannevelKalafong Hospital/University of Pretoria, Klipspringer Street, Atteridgeville, South Africa, 0008.
Cochrane · GBSouth African Medical Research Council · ZAUniversity of Pretoria · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPelvimetry assesses the size of a woman's pelvis aiming to predict whether she will be able to give birth vaginally or not. This can be done by clinical examination, or by conventional X-rays, computerised tomography (CT) scanning, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

objectivesTo assess the effects of pelvimetry (performed antenatally or intrapartum) on the method of birth, on perinatal mortality and morbidity, and on maternal morbidity. This review concentrates exclusively on women whose fetuses have a cephalic presentation. SEARCH

methodsWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (including quasi-randomised) assessing the use of pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or assessing different types of pelvimetry in women with a cephalic presentation at or near term were included. Cluster trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsFive trials with a total of 1159 women were included. All used X-ray pelvimetry to assess the pelvis. X-ray pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or clinical pelvimetry is the only comparison included in this review due to the lack of trials identified that examined other types of radiological pelvimetry or that compared clinical pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry.The included trials were generally at high risk of bias. There is an overall high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of women and staff. Two studies were also at high risk of selection bias. We used GRADEpro software to grade evidence for our selected outcomes; for caesarean section we rated the evidence low quality and all the other outcomes (perinatal mortality, wound sepsis, blood transfusion, scar dehiscence and admission to special care baby unit) as very low quality. Downgrading was due to risk of bias relating to lack of allocation concealment and blinding, and imprecision of effect estimates.Women undergoing X-ray pelvimetry were more likely to have a caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.52; 1159 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for perinatal outcomes: perinatal mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.45; 1159 infants; 5 studies; very low-quality evidence), perinatal asphyxia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10; 305 infants; 1 study), and admission to special care baby unit (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.13; 288 infants; 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Other outcomes assessed were wound sepsis (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.67; 288 women; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), blood transfusion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59; 288 women; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), and scar dehiscence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.46; 390 women; 2 studies; very low-quality evidence). Again, no clear differences were found for these outcomes between the women who received X-ray pelvimetry and those who did not. Apgar score less than seven at five minutes was not reported in any study. AUTHORS'

conclusionsX-ray pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry or clinical pelvimetry is the only comparison included in this review due to the lack of trials identified that used other types or pelvimetry (other radiological examination or clinical pelvimetry versus no pelvimetry). There is not enough evidence to support the use of X-ray pelvimetry for deciding on mode of delivery in women whose fetuses have a cephalic presentation. Women who undergo an X-ray pelvimetry may be more likely to have a caesarean section.Further research should be directed towards defining whether there are specific clinical situations in which pelvimetry can be shown to be of value. Newer methods of pelvimetry (CT, MRI) should be subjected to randomised trials to assess their value. Further trials of X-ray pelvimetry in cephalic presentations would be of value if large enough to assess the effect on perinatal mortality.

Indexed as

Labor PresentationTerm BirthApgar ScoreBlood TransfusionCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansPelvimetryPerinatal MortalityPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound DehiscenceSurgical Wound Infection

Identifiers

PMID28358979
PMCPMC6464150
OpenAlexW2599123473

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.