Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e3210-e3240
DOI: 10.1055/a-2211-4806
Review Article

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

Rahul Sai Yerrabelli 
1   Carle Illinois College of Medicine, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Illinois
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Reading Hospital, Reading, Pennsylvania
,
Claire Lee 
1   Carle Illinois College of Medicine, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Illinois
,
Peggy K. Palsgaard 
1   Carle Illinois College of Medicine, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Illinois
,
Alexa R. Lauinger 
1   Carle Illinois College of Medicine, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
,
Omer Abdelsalam
4   Faculty of Medicine, National University, Khartoum, Sudan
,
Valerie Jennings
1   Carle Illinois College of Medicine, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Illinois
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 23 April 2023

Accepted: 13 November 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
15 November 2023

Article published online:
12 January 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 ACOG Committee Opinion No. 745: Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132 (02) e60-e63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 External Cephalic Version. ACOG practice bulletin, number 221. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (05) e203-e212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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/
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Staffa SJ, Zurakowski D. Statistical development and validation of clinical prediction models. Anesthesiology 2021; 135 (03) 396-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Prediction of success in external cephalic version for breech presentation at term: correction. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134 (01) 182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Aisenbrey GA, Catanzarite VA, Nelson C. External cephalic version: predictors of success. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (5, Pt 1): 783-786
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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/
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar