↓ Skip to main content

External cephalic version for breech presentation before term

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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 before term
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000084.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eileen K Hutton, G Justus Hofmeyr, Therese Dowswell

Abstract

External cephalic version (ECV) of the breech fetus at term (after 37 weeks) has been shown to be effective in reducing the number of breech presentations and caesarean sections, but the rates of success are relatively low. This review examines studies initiating ECV prior to term (before 37 weeks' gestation). To assess the effectiveness of a policy of beginning ECV before term (before 37 weeks' gestation) for breech presentation on fetal presentation at birth, method of delivery, and the rate of preterm birth, perinatal morbidity, stillbirth or neonatal mortality. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ECV attempted before term (37 weeks' gestation) or commenced before term, compared with a control group of women (in breech presentation) in which either no ECV attempted or ECV was attempted at term. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs or studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. Studies were assessed for risk of bias and for important outcomes the overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Five studies are included (2187 women). It was not possible for the intervention to be blinded, and it is not clear what impact lack of blinding would have on the outcomes reported. For other 'Risk of bias' domains studies were either at low or unclear risk of bias.One study reported on ECV that was undertaken and completed before 37 weeks' gestation compared with no ECV. No difference was found in the rate of non-cephalic presentation at birth (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.69; participants = 102). One study reported on a policy of ECV that was initiated before term (33 weeks) and up until 40 weeks' gestation and which could be repeated up until delivery compared with no ECV. This study showed a decrease in the rate of non-cephalic presentation at birth (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77; participants = 179).Three studies reported on ECV started at between 34 to 35 weeks' gestation compared with beginning at 37 to 38 weeks' gestation. Pooled results suggested that early ECV reduced the risk of non-cephalic presentation at birth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; participants = 1906; studies = three; I² = 0%, evidence graded high quality), failure to achieve vaginal cephalic birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 1888; studies = three; I² = 0%, evidence graded high quality), and vaginal breech delivery (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.78; participants = 1888; studies = three; I² = 0%, evidence graded high quality). The difference between groups for risk of caesarean was not statistically significant (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; participants = 1888; studies = three; I² = 0%, evidence graded high quality). There was evidence that risk of preterm labour was increased with early ECV compared with ECV after 37 weeks (6.6% in the ECV group and 4.3% for controls) (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.21; participants = 1888; studies = three; I² = 0%, evidence graded high quality). There was no clear difference between groups for low infant Apgar score at five minutes or perinatal death (stillbirth plus neonatal mortality up to seven days) (evidence graded as low quality for both outcomes). Compared with no ECV attempt, ECV commenced before term reduces non-cephalic presentation at birth. Compared with ECV at term, beginning ECV at between 34 to 35 weeks may have some benefit in terms of decreasing the rate of non-cephalic presentation, and risk of vaginal breech birth. However, early ECV may increase risk of late preterm birth, and it is important that any future research reports infant morbidity outcomes. Results of the review suggest that there is a need for careful discussion with women about the timing of the ECV procedure so that they can make informed decisions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 114 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 13 11%
Other 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 28 24%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 17 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,835,779
of 14,526,769 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,577
of 10,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,225
of 235,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#124
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,526,769 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 235,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.