头外侧翻成功的最佳预测模型。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Rahul S Yerrabelli, Peggy K Palsgaard, Priya Shankarappa, Valerie Jennings
{"title":"头外侧翻成功的最佳预测模型。","authors":"Rahul S Yerrabelli, Peggy K Palsgaard, Priya Shankarappa, Valerie Jennings","doi":"10.1055/a-2419-9146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> The majority of breech fetuses are delivered by cesarean birth as few physicians are trained in vaginal breech birth. An external cephalic version (ECV) can prevent cesarean delivery and the associated morbidity in these patients. Current guidelines recommend that all patients with breech presentation be offered an ECV attempt. Not all attempts are successful, and an attempt does carry some risks, so shared decision-making is necessary. To aid in patient counseling, over a dozen prediction models to predict ECV success have been proposed in the last few years. However, very few models have been externally validated, and thus, none have been adopted into clinical practice. This study aims to use data from a U.S. hospital to provide further data on ECV prediction models.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> This study retrospectively gathered data from Carle Foundation Hospital and used it to test six models previously proposed to predict ECV success. These models were Dahl 2021, Bilgory 2023, López Pérez 2020, Kok 2011, Burgos 2010, and Tasnim 2012 (GNK-PIMS score).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> A total of 125 patients undergoing 132 ECV attempts were included. A total of 69 attempts were successful (52.2%). Dahl 2021 had the greatest predictive value (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.779), whereas Tasnim 2012 performed the worst (AUC: 0.626). The remaining models had similar predictive values as each other (AUC: 0.68-0.71). Bootstrapping confirmed that all models except Tasnim 2012 had confidence intervals not including 0.5. The bootstrapped 95% AUC confidence interval for Dahl 2021 was 0.71 to 0.84. In terms of calibration, Dahl 2021 was well calibrated with predicted probabilities matching observed probabilities. Bilgory 2023 and López Pérez were poorly calibrated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Multiple prediction tools have now been externally validated for ECV success. Dahl 2021 is the most promising prediction tool.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· Prediction models can be powerful tools for patient counseling.. · The odds of ECV success can estimated based on patient factors and clinical findings.. · Of the six tested models, only Dahl 2021 appears to have good predictive value and calibration..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Optimal Prediction Model for Successful External Cephalic Version.\",\"authors\":\"Rahul S Yerrabelli, Peggy K Palsgaard, Priya Shankarappa, Valerie Jennings\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2419-9146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> The majority of breech fetuses are delivered by cesarean birth as few physicians are trained in vaginal breech birth. An external cephalic version (ECV) can prevent cesarean delivery and the associated morbidity in these patients. Current guidelines recommend that all patients with breech presentation be offered an ECV attempt. Not all attempts are successful, and an attempt does carry some risks, so shared decision-making is necessary. To aid in patient counseling, over a dozen prediction models to predict ECV success have been proposed in the last few years. However, very few models have been externally validated, and thus, none have been adopted into clinical practice. This study aims to use data from a U.S. hospital to provide further data on ECV prediction models.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> This study retrospectively gathered data from Carle Foundation Hospital and used it to test six models previously proposed to predict ECV success. These models were Dahl 2021, Bilgory 2023, López Pérez 2020, Kok 2011, Burgos 2010, and Tasnim 2012 (GNK-PIMS score).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> A total of 125 patients undergoing 132 ECV attempts were included. A total of 69 attempts were successful (52.2%). Dahl 2021 had the greatest predictive value (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.779), whereas Tasnim 2012 performed the worst (AUC: 0.626). The remaining models had similar predictive values as each other (AUC: 0.68-0.71). Bootstrapping confirmed that all models except Tasnim 2012 had confidence intervals not including 0.5. The bootstrapped 95% AUC confidence interval for Dahl 2021 was 0.71 to 0.84. In terms of calibration, Dahl 2021 was well calibrated with predicted probabilities matching observed probabilities. Bilgory 2023 and López Pérez were poorly calibrated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Multiple prediction tools have now been externally validated for ECV success. Dahl 2021 is the most promising prediction tool.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· Prediction models can be powerful tools for patient counseling.. · The odds of ECV success can estimated based on patient factors and clinical findings.. · Of the six tested models, only Dahl 2021 appears to have good predictive value and calibration..</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2419-9146\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2419-9146","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:由于很少有医生接受过阴道臀位分娩的培训,大多数臀位胎儿都是通过剖宫产分娩的。头臀外侧位(ECV)可以避免剖宫产及相关的发病率。现行指南建议所有臀先露的患者都可以尝试 ECV。但并非所有尝试都能成功,而且尝试也有一定的风险,因此共同决策是必要的。为了帮助患者进行咨询,过去几年中提出了十几种预测 ECV 成功率的模型。然而,经过外部验证的模型寥寥无几,因此没有一个模型被应用于临床实践。本研究旨在利用美国一家医院的数据,为心血管造影预测模型提供更多数据:本研究回顾性地收集了卡莱基金会医院的数据,并利用这些数据测试了之前提出的六种预测ECV成功率的模型。这些模型分别是 Dahl 2021、Bilgory 2023、López Pérez 2020、Kok 2011、Burgos 2010 和 Tasnim 2012(GNK-PIMS 评分):结果:125 名患者接受了 132 次心肺复苏术。69次尝试成功(52.2%)。Dahl 2021 预测值最高(AUC 0.779),而 Tasnim 2012 预测值最差(AUC 0.626)。其余模型的预测值相近(AUC 0.68-0.71)。引导法证实,除 Tasnim 2012 外,所有模型的置信区间都不包括 0.5。Dahl 2021 的 95% AUC 置信区间为 0.71-0.84。在校准方面,Dahl 2021 模型校准良好,预测概率与观测概率一致。Bilgory 2023 和 López Pérez 的校准效果较差:结论:多种预测工具目前已通过外部验证,以确保 ECV 成功。Dahl 2021 是最有前途的预测工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Optimal Prediction Model for Successful External Cephalic Version.

Objective:  The majority of breech fetuses are delivered by cesarean birth as few physicians are trained in vaginal breech birth. An external cephalic version (ECV) can prevent cesarean delivery and the associated morbidity in these patients. Current guidelines recommend that all patients with breech presentation be offered an ECV attempt. Not all attempts are successful, and an attempt does carry some risks, so shared decision-making is necessary. To aid in patient counseling, over a dozen prediction models to predict ECV success have been proposed in the last few years. However, very few models have been externally validated, and thus, none have been adopted into clinical practice. This study aims to use data from a U.S. hospital to provide further data on ECV prediction models.

Study design:  This study retrospectively gathered data from Carle Foundation Hospital and used it to test six models previously proposed to predict ECV success. These models were Dahl 2021, Bilgory 2023, López Pérez 2020, Kok 2011, Burgos 2010, and Tasnim 2012 (GNK-PIMS score).

Results:  A total of 125 patients undergoing 132 ECV attempts were included. A total of 69 attempts were successful (52.2%). Dahl 2021 had the greatest predictive value (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.779), whereas Tasnim 2012 performed the worst (AUC: 0.626). The remaining models had similar predictive values as each other (AUC: 0.68-0.71). Bootstrapping confirmed that all models except Tasnim 2012 had confidence intervals not including 0.5. The bootstrapped 95% AUC confidence interval for Dahl 2021 was 0.71 to 0.84. In terms of calibration, Dahl 2021 was well calibrated with predicted probabilities matching observed probabilities. Bilgory 2023 and López Pérez were poorly calibrated.

Conclusion:  Multiple prediction tools have now been externally validated for ECV success. Dahl 2021 is the most promising prediction tool.

Key points: · Prediction models can be powerful tools for patient counseling.. · The odds of ECV success can estimated based on patient factors and clinical findings.. · Of the six tested models, only Dahl 2021 appears to have good predictive value and calibration..

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信