Full length article| Volume 228, P137-142, September 2018

Download started.


Development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model for external cephalic version



      To develop a prediction model for the chance of successful external cephalic version (ECV).

      Study design

      This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of atosiban compared to fenoterol as uterine relaxant during ECV in women with a singleton fetus in breech presentation with a gestational age of 36 weeks or more. Potential predictors included maternal, pregnancy, fetal, and treatment characteristics and were recorded in all participants. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with a stepwise backward selection procedure was used to construct a prediction model for the occurrence of successful ECV. Model performance was assessed using calibration and discrimination.


      We included a total of 818 women with an overall ECV success rate of 37%. Ten predictive factors were identified with the stepwise selection procedure to be associated with a successful ECV: fenoterol as uterine relaxant, nulliparity, Caucasian ethnicity, gestational age at ECV, Amniotic Fluid Index, type of breech presentation, placental location, breech engagement, possibility to palpate the head and relaxation of the uterus. Our model showed good calibration and a good discriminative ability with a c-statistic of 0.78 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.81).


      Prediction of success of ECV seems feasible with a model showing good performance. This can be used in clinical practice after external validation.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Hickok D.E.
        • Gordon D.C.
        • Milberg J.A.
        • Williams M.A.
        • Daling J.R.
        The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166 (Accessed November 4, 2013): 851-852
        • Rayl J.
        • Gibson J.
        • Hickok D.
        A population-based case-control study of risk factors for breech presentation.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 174: 28-32
        • Hannah M.E.
        • Hannah W.J.
        • Hewson S.A.
        • Hodnett E.D.
        • Saigal S.
        • Willan A.R.
        Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term breech trial collaborative group.
        Lancet. 2000; 356 (Accessed November 4, 2013): 1375-1383
        • Impey L.W.M.
        • Hofmeyr G.J.
        External cephalic version and reducing the incidence of breech presentation.
        R Coll Obstet Gynaecol Guidel. 2006; (;(Green Top Guidelines No. 20a))
        • Rietberg C.C.T.
        • Elferink-Stinkens P.M.
        • Visser G.H.A.
        The effect of the term breech trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in The Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 112: 205-209
        • Villar J.
        • Carroli G.
        • Zavaleta N.
        • et al.
        Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study.
        BMJ. 2007; 335: 1025
        • Lydon-Rochelle M.
        • Holt V.L.
        • Easterling T.R.
        • Martin D.P.
        Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery.
        New Engl J. 2001; 345: 3-8
        • Collaris R.J.
        • Oei S.G.
        External cephalic version: a safe procedure? A systematic review of version-related risks.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004; 83: 511-518
        • Collins S.
        • Ellaway P.
        • Harrington D.
        • Pandit M.
        • Impey L.W.M.
        The complications of external cephalic version: results from 805 consecutive attempts.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007; 114: 636-638
        • Nassar N.
        • Roberts C.L.
        • Barratt A.
        • Bell J.C.
        • Olive E.C.
        • Peat B.
        Systematic review of adverse outcomes of external cephalic version and persisting breech presentation at term.
        Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006; 20: 163-171
        • Rijnders M.
        • Herschderfer K.
        • Prins M.
        • et al.
        A retrospective study of the success, safety and effectiveness of external cephalic version without tocolysis in a specialised midwifery centre in the Netherlands.
        Midwifery. 2008; 24: 38-45
        • Rosman A.N.
        • Guijt A.
        • Vlemmix F.
        • Rijnders M.
        • Mol B.W.J.
        • Kok M.
        Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013; 92: 137-142
        • ACOG, SMFM
        Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 693-711
        • No G.G.
        management of breech presentation: green-top guideline No. 20b management of breech presentation : Green-top guideline No. 20b.
        BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; : 151-177
        • Hofmeyr G.
        • Kulier R.
        External cephalic version for breech presentation at term.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev Syst Rev. 1996;
        • Velzel J.
        • de Hundt M.
        • Mulder F.M.
        • et al.
        Prediction models for successful external cephalic version: a systematic review.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 195: 160-167
        • Kok M.
        • Cnossen J.
        • Gravendeel L.
        • van der Post J.
        • Opmeer B.
        • Mol B.W.
        Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a metaanalysis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199 (e1-7; discussion e1-5): 630
        • Kok M.
        • Cnossen J.
        • Gravendeel L.
        • Van Der Post J.A.
        • Mol B.W.
        Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 33: 76-84
        • Collins G.S.
        • Reitsma J.B.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Moons K.G.M.
        Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 1142-1151
        • Velzel J.
        • Vlemmix F.
        • Opmeer B.C.
        • et al.
        Atosiban versus fenoterol as a uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial.
        BMJ. 2017; 356
        • Hadlock F.P.
        • Harrist R.B.
        • Sharman R.S.
        • Deter R.L.
        • Park S.K.
        Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements- a prospective study.
        Am J Obs Gynecol. 1985; 151: 333-337
        • Donders A.R.T.
        • van der Heijden G.J.M.G.
        • Stijnen T.
        • Moons K.G.M.
        Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 1087-1091
        • Royston P.
        • Altman D.G.
        Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling.
        Appl Stat. 1994; 43: 429
        • Harrell F.E.
        • Lee K.L.
        • Mark D.B.
        Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.
        Stat Med. 1996; 15: 361-387<361::AID-SIM168>3.0.CO;2-4
        • Sun G.W.
        • Shook T.L.
        • Kay G.L.
        Inappropriate use of bivariable analysis to screen risk factors for use in multivariable analysis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1996; 49 (Accessed January 10, 2018): 907-916
        • Vergouwe Y.
        • Royston P.
        • Moons K.G.M.
        • Altman D.G.
        Development and validation of a prediction model with missing predictor data: a practical approach.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 205-214
        • Rubin D.B.
        • Schenker N.
        Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications.
        Stat Med. 1991; 10 (Accessed January 10, 2018): 585-598
        • Burgos J.
        • Cobos P.
        • Rodriguez L.
        • et al.
        Clinical score for the outcome of external cephalic version: a two-phase prospective study.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 52: 59-61
        • Kok M.
        • van der Steeg J.W.
        • van der Post J.A.
        • Mol B.W.J.
        Prediction of success of external cephalic version after 36 weeks.
        Am J Perinatol. 2011; 28: 103-110
        • Moons K.G.M.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Vergouwe Y.
        • Royston P.
        Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice.
        BMJ. 2009; 338: 1487-1490
        • Groenwold R.H.H.
        • Moons K.G.M.
        • Pajouheshnia R.
        • et al.
        Explicit inclusion of treatment in prognostic modeling was recommended in observational and randomized settings.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 78: 90-100
        • Vlemmix F.
        • Rosman A.N.
        • Rijnders M.E.
        • et al.
        Implementation of client versus care-provider strategies to improve external cephalic version rates: a cluster randomized controlled trial.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015; 94: 518-526
        • Kuppens S.M.I.
        • Francois A.M.H.
        • Hasaart T.H.M.
        • van der Donk M.W.P.
        • Pop V.J.M.
        [Fewer breech deliveries after implementation of a modified cephalic version protocol].
        Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2010; 154 (Accessed August 20, 2015): A63
        • Zandstra H.
        • Mertens H.J.M.M.
        Improving external cephalic version for foetal breech presentation.
        Facts Views Vis ObGyn. 2013; 5: 85-90
        • Kim S.Y.
        • Han J.Y.
        • Chang E.H.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the learning curve for external cephalic version using cumulative sum analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017; 60: 343-349
        • Rosman A.N.
        • Vlemmix F.
        • Beuckens A.
        • et al.
        Facilitators and barriers to external cephalic version for breech presentation at term among health care providers in The Netherlands: a quantitative analysis.
        Midwifery. 2014; 30: e145-50
        • Vlemmix F.
        • Kuitert M.
        • Bais J.
        • et al.
        Patient’s willingness to opt for external cephalic version.
        J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 34: 15-21