Prediction Models for Successful External Cephalic Version: An Updated Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective To review the decision aids currently available or being developed to predict a patient's odds that their external cephalic version (ECV) will be successful.

Study Design We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2015 to 2022. Articles from a pre-2015 systematic review were also included. We selected English-language articles describing or evaluating models (prediction rules) designed to predict an outcome of ECV for an individual patient. Acceptable model outcomes included cephalic presentation after the ECV attempt and whether the ECV ultimately resulted in a vaginal delivery. Two authors independently performed article selection following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Since 2015, 380 unique records underwent title and abstract screening, and 49 reports underwent full-text review. Ultimately, 17 new articles and 8 from the prior review were included. Of the 25 articles, 22 proposed one to two models each for a total of 25 models, while the remaining 3 articles validated prior models without proposing new ones.

Results Of the 17 new articles, 10 were low, 6 moderate, and 1 high risk of bias. Almost all articles were from Europe (11/25) or Asia (10/25); only one study in the last 20 years was from the United States. The models found had diverse presentations including score charts, decision trees (flowcharts), and equations. The majority (13/25) had no form of validation and only 5/25 reached external validation. Only the Newman–Peacock model (United States, 1993) was repeatedly externally validated (Pakistan, 2012 and Portugal, 2018). Most models (14/25) were published in the last 5 years. In general, newer models were designed more robustly, used larger sample sizes, and were more mathematically rigorous. Thus, although they await further validation, there is great potential for these models to be more predictive than the Newman–Peacock model.

Conclusion Only the Newman–Peacock model is ready for regular clinical use. Many newer models are promising but require further validation.

Key Points

• 25 ECV prediction models have been published; 14 were in the last 5 years.

• The Newman–Peacock model is currently the only one with sufficient validation for clinical use.

• Many newer models appear to perform better but await further validation.

Keywords

breech presentation - cesarean delivery - clinical prediction rule - decision tree - logistic regression - nomogram

Availability of Data and Materials

The data and materials have been presented in their entirety in the manuscript and appendices.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 23. April 2023

Angenommen: 13. November 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
15. November 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. Januar 2024

• References

• 1 ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745: Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (02) e60-e63
• 2 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356 (9239): 1375-1383
• 3 External Cephalic Version. ACOG practice bulletin, number 221. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (05) e203-e212
• 4 Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM. et al. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (04) 326.e1-326.e10
• 5 Grootscholten K, Kok M, Oei SG, Mol BWJ, van der Post JA. External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (05) 1143-1151
• 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 (06) 630.e1-630.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 (01) 76-84
• 8 Chaudhary S, Contag S, Yao R. The impact of maternal body mass index on external cephalic version success. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (13) 2159-2165
• 9 Riemma G, Schiattarella A, La Verde M. et al. Usefulness of atosiban for tocolysis during external cephalic version: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 258: 86-92
• 10 Velzel J, de Hundt M, Mulder FM. et al. Prediction models for successful external cephalic version: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 195: 160-167
• 11 Cowley LE, Farewell DM, Maguire S, Kemp AM. Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature. Diagn Progn Res 2019; 3 (01) 16
• 12 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71
• 13 Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD. et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med 2019; 170 (01) 51
• 14 Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158 (04) 280
• 15 McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, Naylor CD, Stiell IG, Richardson WS. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 2000; 284 (01) 79-84
• 16 Wee L, van Kuijk SMJ, Dankers FJWM, Traverso A, Welch M, Dekker A. Reporting standards and critical appraisal of prediction models. In: Kubben P, Dumontier M, Dekker A, eds. Fundamentals of Clinical Data Science. Cham: Springer; 2019. Accessed January 25, 2023 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK543529/
• 17 Staffa SJ, Zurakowski D. Statistical development and validation of clinical prediction models. Anesthesiology 2021; 135 (03) 396-405
• 18 Ramspek CL, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, van Diepen M. External validation of prognostic models: what, why, how, when and where?. Clin Kidney J 2021; 14 (01) 49-58
• 19 Van Calster B, Nieboer D, Vergouwe Y, De Cock B, Pencina MJ, Steyerberg EW. A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 74: 167-176
• 20 Kok M, van der Steeg J, van der Post J, Mol B. Prediction of success of external cephalic version after 36 weeks. Am J Perinatol 2011; 28 (02) 103-110
• 21 De Hundt M, Vlemmix F, Kok M. et al. External validation of a prediction model for successful external cephalic version. Am J Perinatol 2012; 29 (03) 231-236
• 22 Burgos J, Melchor JC, Pijoán JI, Cobos P, Fernández-Llebrez L, Martínez-Astorquiza T. A prospective study of the factors associated with the success rate of external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 112 (01) 48-51
• 23 Burgos J, Cobos P, Rodriguez L. et al. Clinical score for the outcome of external cephalic version: a two-phase prospective study: Clinical score for external cephalic version. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2012; 52 (01) 59-61
• 24 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 (07) 798-802
• 25 Kok M, Bais JM, van Lith JM. et al. Nifedipine as a uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (2, Pt 1): 271-276
• 26 Stock A, Chung T, Rogers M, Ming WW. Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled comparison of ritodrine and hexoprenaline for tocolysis prior to external cephalic version at term. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 33 (03) 265-268
• 27 Dahl CM, Zhang Y, Ong JX. et al. Patient characteristics associated with complications of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2021; 3 (05) 100411
• 28 Velzel J, Vlemmix F, Opmeer BC. et al. Atosiban versus fenoterol as a uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2017; 356: i6773
• 29 Silva RM, Clode N. Applying the Newman-Peacock prognostic system to a portuguese obstetrical population - a useful tool?. Rev Bras Ginecol E Obstet Rev Fed Bras Soc Ginecol E Obstet 2018; 40 (01) 4-10
• 30 Tasnim N, Mahmud G, Javaid K. GNK-PIMS score: a predictive model for success of external cephalic version. J South Asian Fed Obstet Gynecol 2012; 4 (02) 99-102
• 31 Newman RB, Peacock BS, Peter VanDorsten J, Hunt HH. Predicting success of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169 (02) 245-250
• 32 Burgos J, Iglesias M, Pijoan JI, Rodriguez L, Fernández-Llebrez L, Martínez-Astorquiza T. Probability of cesarean delivery after successful external cephalic version. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 131 (02) 192-195
• 33 Velzel J, Schuit E, Vlemmix F. et al. Development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model for external cephalic version. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 228: 137-142
• 34 Anand K, Keepanasseril A, Amala R, Nair NS. Development and validation of a clinical score to predict the probability of successful procedure in women undergoing external cephalic version. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 34 (18) 2925-2931
• 35 Palepu PM, Anand K, Ghosh SK, Keepanasseril A. Factors associated with intrapartum cesarean section after a successful external cephalic version. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35 (25) 9038-9042
• 36 Dong T, Chen X, Zhao B. et al. Development of prediction models for successful external cephalic version and delivery outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2022; 305 (01) 63-75
• 37 Svensson E, Axelsson D, Nelson M, Nevander S, Blomberg M. Success rate of external cephalic version in relation to the woman's body mass index and other factors-a population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021; 100 (12) 2260-2267
• 38 Zheng LG, Zhang HL, Chen RX. et al. Scoring system to predict the success rate of external cephalic versions and determine the timing of the procedure. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2021; 25 (01) 45-55
• 39 Lin J, Liu W, Gu W, Zhou Y. A prospective study using an individualized nomogram to predict the success rate of external cephalic version. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 11795
• 40 Bilgory A, Minich O, Shvaikovsky M, Gurevich G, Lessing JB, Olteanu I. Predictive factors for successful vaginal delivery after a trial of external cephalic version: a retrospective cohort study of 946 women. Am J Perinatol 2023; 40 (15) 1679-1686
• 41 Isakov O, Reicher L, Lavie A, Yogev Y, Maslovitz S. Prediction of success in external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (05) 857-866
• 42 Cobec IM, Varzaru VB, Kövendy T. et al. External Cephalic version-a chance for vaginal delivery at breech presentation. Medicina (Kaunas) 2022; 58 (11) 1619
• 43 Ebner F, Friedl TWP, Leinert E. et al. Predictors for a successful external cephalic version: a single centre experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016; 293 (04) 749-755
• 44 Hutton EK, Simioni JC, Thabane L. Predictors of success of external cephalic version and cephalic presentation at birth among 1253 women with non-cephalic presentation using logistic regression and classification tree analyses. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017; 96 (08) 1012-1020
• 45 López-Pérez R, Lorente-Fernández M, Velasco-Martínez M, Martínez-Cendán JP. Prediction model of success for external cephalic version. Complications and perinatal outcomes after a successful version. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2020; 46 (10) 2002-2009
• 46 Dahl CM, Zhang Y, Ong JX. et al. A multivariable predictive model for success of external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 138 (03) 426-433
• 47 Bilgory A, Minich O, Shvaikovsky M, Gurevich G, Lessing JB, Olteanu I. Erratum: Predictive factors for successful vaginaldelivery after a trial of external cephalic version: a retrospectivecohort study of 946 women. Am J Perinatol 2023; 40 (15) e1
• 48 Prediction of success in external cephalic version for breech presentation at term: correction. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134 (01) 182
• 49 Aisenbrey GA, Catanzarite VA, Nelson C. External cephalic version: predictors of success. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (5, Pt 1): 783-786
• 50 Wong WM, Lao TT, Liu KL. Predicting the success of external cephalic version with a scoring system. A prospective, two-phase study. J Reprod Med 2000; 45 (03) 201-206
• 51 Dankers FJWM, Traverso A, Wee L, van Kuijk SMJ. Prediction modeling methodology. In: Kubben P, Dumontier M, Dekker A, eds. Fundamentals of Clinical Data Science. Cham: Springer; 2019. Accessed January 26, 2023 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK543534/
• 52 de Hundt M, Vlemmix F, Bais JMJ, de Groot CJ, Mol BW, Kok M. Risk factors for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery after successful external cephalic version. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (12) 2005-2007
• 53 Majeed N, Kalsoom S, Safdar F, Rafique S, Tariq S, Bibi S. To determine the rate of success of external cephalic version in low risk breech presentations and possible factors affecting its success in POF hospital, Wah Cantt. J Rawalpindi Med Coll 2021; 25 (02) 186-191
• 54 Lee JY, Kim Y, Sohn IS. et al. Height of elevated fetal buttock for prediction of successful external cephalic version. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2020; 63 (01) 13-18