SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
External cephalic version in nonvertex second twin-Success rate, mode of delivery, and safety: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- External cephalic version in nonvertex second twin-Success rate, mode of delivery, and safety: A systematic review.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- What to do when the second twin is non-vertex?Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
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
introductionOne of the key challenges regarding the management of twins involves choosing the optimal mode of delivery, which is strongly influenced by the final presentation of both fetuses. In cases of vertex-nonvertex pregnancies attempting the trial of vaginal delivery, external cephalic version (ECV) is one of possible management options. The main objective of this review was to collect and summarize available data in terms of the application of ECV in the population of nonvertex second twins. MATERIAL AND
methodsUsing the PRISMA guidelines, we searched for original, English-language studies investigating ECV in nonvertex second twins. The PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and COCHRANE databases were searched until May 2024. Reviews, case reports, editorials, and conference papers were excluded from further analysis. Out of 260 papers retrieved, 10 were subjected to the final analysis in terms of success rates, modes of delivery, and adverse outcomes.
resultsThe total number of ECVs was 289, with an overall success rate of 64.4%. In the group of successful versions, vertex vaginal delivery was achieved in 171 cases (91.9%). The incidence of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes was low.
conclusionsThe purpose of this review was to consolidate and update the current knowledge regarding ECV in nonvertex second twins. Based on the results of this series of studies, ECV appears to be a reasonable management option. However, it is important to highlight several significant limitations. The primary concern is the lack of recent research in this field over the past three decades, with the most recent study in our review being published in 1998. Furthermore, the actual number of studies addressing this topic is relatively low, characterized by a retrospective nature and questionable methodologies. These limitations make it challenging to draw definitive conclusions for clinical practice. This is an important message for our community, emphasizing the need for further studies in this area, particularly randomized controlled trials, to evaluate the safety and success rate of vaginal twin delivery after ECV when the second twin presents in a nonvertex position.
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.