↓ Skip to main content

External cephalic version for breech presentation at term

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
External cephalic version for breech presentation at term
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000083.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

G Justus Hofmeyr, Regina Kulier, Helen M West

Abstract

Management of breech presentation is controversial, particularly in regard to manipulation of the position of the fetus by external cephalic version (ECV). ECV may reduce the number of breech presentations and caesarean sections, but there also have been reports of complications with the procedure. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of ECV at or near term on measures of pregnancy outcome. Methods of facilitating ECV, and ECV before term are reviewed separately. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (28 February 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised trials of ECV at or near term (with or without tocolysis) compared with no attempt at ECV in women with breech presentation. Two review authors assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted the data. We included eight studies, with a total of 1308 women randomised. The pooled data from these studies show a statistically significant and clinically meaningful reduction in non-cephalic presentation at birth (average risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.61, eight trials, 1305 women); vaginal cephalic birth not achieved (average RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.62, seven trials, 1253 women, evidence graded very low); and caesarean section (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.82, eight trials, 1305 women, evidence graded very low) when ECV was attempted in comparison to no ECV attempted. There were no significant differences in the incidence of Apgar score ratings below seven at one minute (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.37, three trials, 168 infants) or five minutes (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.36, five trials, 428 infants, evidence graded very low), low umbilical vein pH levels (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.44, one trial, 52 infants, evidence graded very low), neonatal admission (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34, four trials, 368 infants, evidence graded very low), perinatal death (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.64, eight trials, 1305 infants, evidence graded low), nor time from enrolment to delivery (mean difference -0.25 days, 95% CI -2.81 to 2.31, two trials, 256 women).All of the trials included in this review had design limitations, and the level of evidence was graded low or very low. No studies attempted to blind the intervention, and the process of random allocation was suboptimal in several studies. Three of the eight trials had serious design limitations, however excluding these studies in a sensitivity analysis for outcomes with substantial heterogeneity did not alter the results. Attempting cephalic version at term reduces the chance of non-cephalic presentation at birth, vaginal cephalic birth not achieved and caesarean section. There is not enough evidence from randomised trials to assess complications of ECV at term. Large observational studies suggest that complications are rare.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 12%
India 1 4%
Ethiopia 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Spain 1 4%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 4%
Ireland 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 13 52%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 184%
Student > Bachelor 29 116%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 108%
Researcher 22 88%
Student > Postgraduate 17 68%
Other 62 248%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 133 532%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 92%
Unspecified 18 72%
Social Sciences 9 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 36%
Other 11 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2016.
All research outputs
#540,262
of 12,607,969 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,868
of 10,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,561
of 221,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#59
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,607,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 221,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.