Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33015154›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2020

Validation of a Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery Prediction Model in Teaching Hospitals of Addis Ababa University: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Eyaya Misgan, Abel Gedefaw, Shiferaw Negash, Anteneh Asefa

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. FIGO good practice recommendations for vaginal birth after cesarean section.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Eyaya MisganDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Abel GedefawDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5541-0088
Shiferaw NegashDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Anteneh AsefaSchool of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Addis Ababa University · ETBahir Dar University · ETHawassa University · ETThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExternal validation of a vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) prediction model is important before implementation in other settings. The primary aim of this study is to validate the Grobman prenatal VBAC calculator in the Ethiopian setting. Secondarily, the study was aimed at developing and comparing a new VBAC model that includes both the prenatal and intrapartum variables.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted, complemented by a medical chart review of 268 women admitted at three teaching hospitals of Addis Ababa University and who underwent a trial of labor after one prior cesarean birth. Maternal age, prepregnancy BMI, prior vaginal delivery, prior VBAC, and prior cesarean delivery indication type were included in the Grobman model. Observed delivery outcomes were recorded and then compared with the outcomes predicted by the calculator. We assessed the predictive abilities of the Grobman model and the new model using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify variables associated with successful VBAC.

resultsOut of the 268 participants, 186 (69.4%) (95% CI 57.5-81.3) had successful VBAC. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the Grobman model was 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.81). Notably, the novel model including both the prenatal and intrapartum variables had a better predictive value than the original model, with an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.93). Prior VBAC, prepregnancy BMI, fetal membrane status, and fetal station at admission were predictors of VBAC in the newly developed logistic regression model.

conclusionsThe success rate of VBAC was similar to other sub-Saharan African countries. The Grobman model performed adequately in the study setting; however, the model including both the prenatal and intrapartum variables was more predictive. Thus, intrapartum predictors used in the new model should be considered during intrapartum counseling.

Indexed as

AdultCesarean SectionCross-Sectional StudiesEthiopiaFemaleHospitals, TeachingHumansLabor, ObstetricMaternal AgePregnancyROC CurveUniversitiesVaginal Birth after CesareanYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33015154
PMCPMC7520680
OpenAlexW3087045594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.