ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Models for predicting vaginal birth after cesarean section: scoping review.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Success rate and obstetric outcomes of trial of labor after cesarean delivery-Decision-tree analysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen who are pregnant again after a prior cesarean section are faced with the choice between a vaginal trial and another cesarean section. Vaginal delivery is safer for mothers and babies, but face the risk of trial labor failure. Predictive models can evaluate the success rate of vaginal trial labor after cesarean section, which will help obstetricians and pregnant women choose the appropriate delivery method.
objectiveTo review the existing prediction models of vaginal delivery after cesaean.
methodsSeven databases, including CNKI, Wanfang Data, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, China Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, were searched for studies on the predictive model of VBAC from inception to July 20, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted the data. The risk of bias and applicability of the included researches was evaluated using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool.
resultsTwenty-six studies that covered 26 models were included. The overall property of the included models was good, but validation of the included models was insufficient. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low, with 3 studies rated as having a low risk of bias and 23 studies rated as having a high risk of bias. The main predictors in the models were the Bishop score, history of vaginal delivery, neonatal weight, maternal age, and BMI.
conclusionsAlthough a variety of prediction models have been developed globally, the methodology of these studies has limitations and the models have not been adequately validated. In the future, more prospective and high-quality research is needed to develop visual models to serve clinical work more effectively and conveniently. Obstetricians or midwives could use predictive models to help a woman choose the right delivery method.
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.