↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 Mendeley
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 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 262 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 15%
Student > Master 33 12%
Other 28 10%
Researcher 25 9%
Student > Postgraduate 24 9%
Other 62 23%
Unknown 54 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 136 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 3 1%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 61 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 05 March 2022.
All research outputs
#753,341
of 21,933,216 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,640
of 12,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,471
of 240,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#47
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,933,216 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 240,990 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.