ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Validation of the Grobman model for successful vaginal birth after cesarean section in Jordanian women.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "Predictors of failed vaginal birth after cesarean and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes: a case control study".BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo validate both models of Grobman nomogram (The antenatal and the intrapartum model) for predicting successful intended Vaginal Birth After Caesarean delivery (VBAC) in a Jordanian population.
methodsA retrospective study has identified all live, singleton, term, cephalic pregnancies with a previous lower segment cesarean section who opted for a Trial Of Labour After Caesarean Section (TOLAC) between January 2014 to December 2020. Five variables were used for the antenatal model, while ten variables were used for the intrapartum model. Two sets of patients were created: one for the antenatal model and the other for the intrapartum model. The predicted probability for each woman was calculated and compared with the successful VBAC for each category. The predictive ability was assessed with a receiver operating characteristic, and the area under the curve (AUC) was determined.
resultsThere were seven hundred and fourteen complete cases for the antenatal model and six hundred ninety-seven for the intrapartum model. Our population's overall number of VBAC is 83.89% for the antenatal group and 82.92% for the intrapartum group. The mean predicted probability for a successful intended VBAC using the antenatal and intrapartum models were 79.53 ± 13.47 and 78.64 ± 14.03, respectively. The antenatal and intrapartum predictive models ROC had an AUC of 65% (95% CI: 60%-71%) and 64% (95% CI: 58%-69%), respectively.
conclusionsBoth models are validated in the Jordanian population. Adapting the antenatal model as supporting evidence can lead to a higher rate of TOLAC.
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.