Predictive Models for Estimating the Probability of Successful Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review
- PMID: 36201785
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004940
Predictive Models for Estimating the Probability of Successful Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review all studies that developed or validated a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) prediction model.
Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until February 2022.
Methods of study selection: We included observational studies that developed or validated a multivariable VBAC prediction model in women with a singleton pregnancy and one previous lower segment cesarean delivery. A total of 3,758 articles were identified and screened.
Tabulation, integration, and results: For 57 included studies, data were extracted in duplicate using a CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Review of Prediction Modelling Studies) checklist-based tool and included participants' characteristics, sample size, predictors, timing of application, and performance. PROBAST (Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) were used to assess risk of bias and transparency of reporting. Several studies developed or validated more than one model. There were 38 unique prediction models, 42 external validations of 10 existing prediction models, and six modifications of existing models. Of the 38 unique models, only 19 (19/38, 50%) were internally validated in the initial study. No studies externally validated their model in the initial study. Age, previous vaginal birth, and previous cesarean delivery for labor dystocia were the commonest predictors. The area under the curve in included studies ranged from 0.61 to 0.95. Models used close to delivery generally outperformed those used earlier in pregnancy. Most studies demonstrated a high risk of bias (45/57, 79%), the remainder were unclear (7/57, 12%) and low (5/57, 9%). Median TRIPOD checklist adherence was 70% (range 32-93%).
Conclusion: Several prediction models for VBAC success exist, but many lack external validation and are at high risk of bias. Models used close to delivery outperformed those used earlier in pregnancy; however, their generalizability and applicability remain unclear. High-quality external validation and effect studies are required to guide clinical use.
Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42020190930.
Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
Similar articles
-
Prognostic models for predicting clinical disease progression, worsening and activity in people with multiple sclerosis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Sep 8;9(9):CD013606. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013606.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 37681561 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Predictors of successful vaginal birth after a cesarean section in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Jan 26;23(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05396-w. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023. PMID: 36703101 Free PMC article.
-
Models for predicting vaginal birth after cesarean section: scoping review.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024 Dec 26;24(1):869. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-07101-x. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024. PMID: 39725898 Free PMC article.
-
Vaginal Delivery After External Cephalic Version in Patients With a Previous Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Nov;136(5):965-971. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004065. Obstet Gynecol. 2020. PMID: 33030882
-
Multivariable prediction models for fetal macrosomia and large for gestational age: A systematic review.BJOG. 2024 Nov;131(12):1591-1602. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17802. Epub 2024 Mar 11. BJOG. 2024. PMID: 38465451
Cited by
-
Evaluating the performance of an AI-powered VBAC prediction system within a decision-aid birth choice platform for shared decision-making.Digit Health. 2024 May 21;10:20552076241257014. doi: 10.1177/20552076241257014. eCollection 2024 Jan-Dec. Digit Health. 2024. PMID: 38778867 Free PMC article.
-
Construction and evaluation of nursing-sensitive quality indicators for vaginal birth after cesarean: A Delphi study based on Chinese population.Heliyon. 2023 Oct 21;9(11):e21389. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21389. eCollection 2023 Nov. Heliyon. 2023. PMID: 37885709 Free PMC article.
-
Challenges and Opportunities for Data Science in Women's Health.Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2023 Aug 10;6:23-45. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-020722-105958. Epub 2023 Apr 11. Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2023. PMID: 37040736 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Motomura K, Ganchimeg T, Nagata C, Ota E, Vogel JP, Betran AP, et al. Incidence and outcomes of uterine rupture among women with prior caesarean section: WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. Scientific Rep 2017;7:44093. doi: 10.1038/srep44093 - DOI
-
- Gupta JK SG, Chodankar RR. Birth after previous caesarean birth. Green-top Guideline No. 45. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2015.
-
- Eden KB, McDonagh M, Denman MA, Marshall N, Emeis C, Fu R, et al. New insights on vaginal birth after cesarean: can it be predicted? Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:967–81. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f2de49 - DOI
-
- Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, et al. PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med 2019;170:51–8. doi: 10.7326/m18-1376 - DOI
-
- Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMC Med 2015;13:1. doi: 10.1186/s12916-014-0241-z - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials