ArticleScientific reports2023
Childbirth simulation to assess cephalopelvic disproportion and chances for failed labor in a French population.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of ADIET communication and delivery rehearsal on anxiety, labor process, and outcomes in vaginal trial delivery.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of the natural birth prediction system for assessing cephalopelvic disproportion: a multicentre prospective study.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence of obstetric fistula: a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence from 38 countries.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Review
- Review
- MRI-based pseudo-CT sequences as a radiation-free alternative to CT for obstetric pelvimetry: a proof-of-concept study.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Clinical competencies of undergraduate nursing students for labor care: a quasi-experimental study.Revista CuidarteArticle
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reducing failed labor and emergency cesarean section (CS) rates is an important goal. A childbirth simulation tool (PREDIBIRTH software and SIM37 platform) that evaluates a 5-min magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment performed at 37 weeks of gestation was developed to enhance the consulting obstetrician's ability to predict the optimal delivery mode. We aimed to determine the potential value of this childbirth simulation tool in facilitating the selection of an optimal delivery mode for both mother and infant. A retrospective cohort study was performed on all patients referred by their obstetricians to our level 2 maternity radiology department between December 15, 2015 and November 15, 2016, to undergo MRI pelvimetry at approximately 37 weeks of gestation. The childbirth simulation software was employed to predict the optimal delivery mode based on the assessment of cephalopelvic disproportion. The prediction was compared with the actual outcome for each case. Including childbirth simulations in the decision-making process had the potential to reduce emergency CSs, inappropriately scheduled CSs, and instrumental vaginal deliveries by up to 30.1%, 20.7%, and 20.0%, respectively. Although the use of the simulation tool might not have affected the overall CS rate, consideration of predicted birthing outcomes has the potential to improve the allocation between scheduled CS and trial of labor. The routine use of childbirth simulation software as a clinical support tool when choosing the optimal delivery mode for singleton pregnancies with a cephalic presentation could reduce the number of emergency CSs, insufficiently justified CSs, and instrumental deliveries.
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.