Am J Perinatol 2012; 29(03): 231-236
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1285098
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

External Validation of a Prediction Model for Successful External Cephalic Version

Marcella De Hundt
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
,
Floortje Vlemmix
2   Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Marjolein Kok
2   Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Jan W. Van Der Steeg
2   Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Joke M. Bais
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands
,
Ben W. Mol
2   Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
,
Joris A. Van Der Post
2   Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 March 2011

23 June 2011

Publication Date:
01 August 2011 (online)

Abstract

We sought external validation of a prediction model for the probability of a successful external cephalic version (ECV). We evaluated the performance of the prediction model with calibration and discrimination. For clinical practice, we developed a score chart to calculate the probability of a successful ECV. We studied 320 women undergoing ECV, of which 117 (37%) were successful. The model underestimated the success rate by 4 to 14%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was moderate (0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 0.72), but the model was able to make good distinction between women with a higher predicted probability of a successful ECV (more than 50%) compared with women with a lower predicted probability of a successful ECV (less than 20%). Our model to predict the outcome of ECV holds in external validation. It can be used to support patient counseling and decision making for ECV in singleton term breech presentations.

 
  • References

  • 1 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375-1383
  • 2 Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Brand R, van Loon AJ, Van Hemel OJ, Visser GH. Term breech presentation in The Netherlands from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33824 infants. BJOG 2003; 110: 604-609
  • 3 Sheiner E, Shoham-Vardi I, Hallak M, Hershkowitz R, Katz M, Mazor M. Placenta previa: obstetric risk factors and pregnancy outcome. J Matern Fetal Med 2001; 10: 414-419
  • 4 Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D , et al. WHO 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal health research group Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006; 367: 1819-1829
  • 5 Hofmeyr GJ. Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (1) CD000184
  • 6 Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, van der Post J, Opmeer B, Mol BW. Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 630-637 , e1–e7; discussion e1–e5
  • 7 Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, Van Der Post JA, Mol BW. Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 76-84
  • 8 Kok M, van der Steeg JW, van der Post JA, Mol BW. Prediction of success of external cephalic version after 36 weeks. Am J Perinatol 2011; 28: 103-110
  • 9 Custers IM, Steures P, van der Steeg JW , et al. External validation of a prediction model for an ongoing pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 425-431
  • 10 Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements—a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 333-337
  • 11 Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 2002; 7: 147-177
  • 12 Schafer JL. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997
  • 13 Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW , et al. External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 826-832
  • 14 Aisenbrey GA, Catanzarite VA, Nelson C. External cephalic version: predictors of success. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (5 Pt 1) 783-786
  • 15 Fortunato SJ, Mercer LJ, Guzick DS. External cephalic version with tocolysis: factors associated with success. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 59-62
  • 16 Lau TK, Lo KW, Wan D, Rogers MS. Predictors of successful external cephalic version at term: a prospective study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 798-802
  • 17 Newman RB, Peacock BS, VanDorsten JP, Hunt HH. Predicting success of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169 (2 Pt 1) 245-249 ; discussion 249–250
  • 18 Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, van der Post J, Opmeer B, Mol BW. Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 630;e1-e7 ;discussion e1–e5
  • 19 Kok M, Cnossen J, Gravendeel L, Van Der Post JA, Mol BW. Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 76-84
  • 20 Coppus SF, van der Veen F, Opmeer BC, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Evaluating prediction models in reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 1774-1778
  • 21 Tan JM, Macario A, Carvalho B, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY. Cost-effectiveness of external cephalic version for term breech presentation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010; 10: 3