ReviewEuropean journal of midwifery2020
Effects of external cephalic version for breech presentation at or near term in high-resource settings: A systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies.
Review in European journal of midwifery, 2020. 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, 12 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
- Practical technique and clinical management guide for external cephalic version.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2026Review
- Reproducibility of Breech Progression Angle: Standardization of Transperineal Measurements and Development of Image-Based Checklist for Quality Control.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Perinatal outcome of vaginal breech delivery in Orotta National Referral Teaching Hospital, Eritrea, 2024; a case control study.PloS one · 2025Article
- External Cephalic Version-A Chance for Vaginal Delivery at Breech Presentation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExternal cephalic version (ECV) for breech presentation involves manual manipulation of the fetus from breech to cephalic presentation at or near term, in an attempt to avoid breech birth. This systematic review summarizes the literature on the effects of ECV at or near term on pregnancy outcomes in high-resource settings.
methodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MIDIRS, and SweMED+ databases were searched for relevant articles published through April 2019, with no limitation on publication date. Clinical trials comparing the effects of ECV at ≥36 weeks, with or without tocolysis, with that of no ECV, conducted in northern, western, and central Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were eligible for inclusion.
resultsNine articles reporting on 184704 breech pregnancies were included. Pooled data showed that ECV attempts reduced the failure to achieve vaginal cephalic birth (risk ratio, RR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.45-0.71), caesarean section performance (RR=0.57; 95% CI: 0.50-0.64), and non-cephalic presentation at birth (RR=0.45; 95% CI: 0.29-0.68) compared with no ECV. ECV attempts also increased the incidence of Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes (RR=1.29; 95% CI: 1.10-1.52).
conclusionsWomen for whom ECV is attempted at or near term are at reduced risk of caesarean section, non-cephalic presentation at term, and failure to achieve vaginal cephalic birth. Compared with no ECV, attempted ECV was also associated with a slightly increased risk of a low Apgar score at 5 minutes. The evidence is limited by the scarcity of high-quality research and the presence of risks of bias.
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.