Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33270607›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020

Development and Validation of Predictive Models for Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery in China.

Shilei Bi, Lizi Zhang, Jingsi Chen, Lijun Huang, Shanshan Zeng, Jinping Jia, Suiwen Wen, Yinli Cao, Shaoshuai Wang, Xiaoyan Xu and 10 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

20 authors.

Shilei BiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Lizi ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Jingsi ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Lijun HuangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Shanshan ZengDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Jinping JiaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Guangzhou Huadu District Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Suiwen WenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan People's Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Yinli CaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwest Women's and Children's Hospital, Xian, Shaanxi, China (mainland).
Shaoshuai WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China (mainland).
Xiaoyan XuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China (mainland).
Feng LingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China (mainland).
Xianlan ZhaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henen, China (mainland).
Yangyu ZhaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China (mainland).
Qiying ZhuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China (mainland).
Hongbo QiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China (mainland).
Lanzhen ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Hongtian LiInstitute of Reproductive and Child Health, National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Reproductive Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China (mainland).
Lili DuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Zhijian WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).
Dunjin ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China (mainland).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND The rate of delivery by cesarean section is rising in China, where vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is in its early stages. There are no validated screening tools to predict VBAC success in China. The objective of this study was to identify the variables predicting the likelihood of successful VBAC to create a predictive model. MATERIAL AND METHODS This multicenter, retrospective study included 1013 women at ≥28 gestational weeks with a vertex singleton gestation and 1 prior low-transverse cesarean from January 2017 to December 2017 in 11 public tertiary hospitals within 7 provinces of China. Two multivariable logistic regression models were developed: (1) at a first-trimester visit and (2) at the pre-labor admission to hospital. The models were evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and internally validated using k-fold cross-validation. The pre-labor model was calibrated and a graphic nomogram and clinical impact curve were created. RESULTS A total of 87.3% (884/1013) of women had successful VBAC, and 12.7% (129/1013) underwent unplanned cesarean delivery after a failed trial of labor. The AUC of the first-trimester model was 0.661 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-0.712), which increased to 0.758 (95% CI: 0.715-0.801) in the pre-labor model. The pre-labor model showed good internal validity, with AUC 0.743 (95% CI: 0.694-0.785), and was well calibrated. CONCLUSIONS VBAC provides women the chance to experience a vaginal delivery. Using a pre-labor model to predict successful VBAC is feasible and may help choose mode of birth and contribute to a reduction in cesarean delivery rate.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalVaginal Birth after CesareanAdultCalibrationChinaFemaleHumansLabor, ObstetricNomogramsPregnancyReproducibility of ResultsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID33270607
PMCPMC7722770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.