968 lines
240 KiB
Text
968 lines
240 KiB
Text
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" class="no-js no-jr">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<!-- For pinger, set start time and add meta elements. -->
|
|
<script type="text/javascript">var ncbi_startTime = new Date();</script>
|
|
|
|
<!-- Logger begin -->
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_db" content="books">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_pdid" content="book-toc">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_acc" content="NBK573937">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_domain" content="niceng201er13">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_report" content="reader">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_type" content="fulltext">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_objectid" content="">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_pcid" content="/NBK573937/?report=reader">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_pagename" content="Management of breech presentation - NCBI Bookshelf">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_bookparttype" content="toc">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_app" content="bookshelf">
|
|
<!-- Logger end -->
|
|
|
|
<!--component id="Page" label="meta"/-->
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/js/jr.boots.min.js"> </script><title>Management of breech presentation - NCBI Bookshelf</title>
|
|
<meta charset="utf-8">
|
|
<meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="no">
|
|
<meta name="viewport" content="initial-scale=1,minimum-scale=1,maximum-scale=1,user-scalable=no">
|
|
<meta name="jr-col-layout" content="1">
|
|
<meta name="robots" content="INDEX,FOLLOW,NOARCHIVE,NOIMAGEINDEX">
|
|
<meta name="author" content="National Guideline Alliance (UK)">
|
|
<meta name="citation_title" content="Management of breech presentation">
|
|
<meta name="citation_publisher" content="National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)">
|
|
<meta name="citation_date" content="2021/08">
|
|
<meta name="citation_author" content="National Guideline Alliance (UK)">
|
|
<meta name="citation_pmid" content="34524741">
|
|
<meta name="citation_fulltext_html_url" content="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573937/">
|
|
<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/DC/elements/1.0/">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Title" content="Management of breech presentation">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Type" content="Text">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Publisher" content="National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Contributor" content="National Guideline Alliance (UK)">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Date" content="2021/08">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Identifier" content="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573937/">
|
|
<meta name="og:title" content="Management of breech presentation">
|
|
<meta name="og:type" content="book">
|
|
<meta name="og:url" content="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573937/">
|
|
<meta name="og:site_name" content="NCBI Bookshelf">
|
|
<meta name="og:image" content="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/bookshelf/thumbs/th-niceng201er13-lrg.png">
|
|
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary">
|
|
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@ncbibooks">
|
|
<meta name="bk-non-canon-loc" content="/books/n/niceng201er13/toc/?report=reader">
|
|
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573937/">
|
|
<link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Archivo+Narrow:400,700,400italic,700italic&subset=latin" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/css/libs.min.css">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/css/jr.min.css">
|
|
<meta name="format-detection" content="telephone=no">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/css/books.min.css" type="text/css">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/css//books_print.min.css" type="text/css" media="print">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/css/books_reader.min.css" type="text/css">
|
|
<style type="text/css">p a.figpopup{display:inline !important} .bk_tt {font-family: monospace} .first-line-outdent .bk_ref {display: inline} .body-content h2, .body-content .h2 {border-bottom: 1px solid #97B0C8} .body-content h2.inline {border-bottom: none} a.page-toc-label , .jig-ncbismoothscroll a {text-decoration:none;border:0 !important} .temp-labeled-list .graphic {display:inline-block !important} .temp-labeled-list img{width:100%}</style>
|
|
|
|
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/favicon.ico">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_phid" content="CE8EEF507D7068E100000000006A0059.m_5">
|
|
<meta name='referrer' content='origin-when-cross-origin'/><link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="//static.pubmed.gov/portal/portal3rc.fcgi/4216699/css/3852956/3849091.css"></head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!-- Book content! -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div id="jr" data-jr-path="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/"><div class="jr-unsupported"><table class="modal"><tr><td><span class="attn inline-block"></span><br />Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.<br />Go to <a href="/pmc/about/pr-browsers/">this page</a> to see a list of supported browsers<br />or return to the <br /><a href="/books/NBK573937/?report=classic">regular view</a>.</td></tr></table></div><div id="jr-ui" class="hidden"><nav id="jr-head"><div class="flexh tb"><div id="jr-tb1"><a id="jr-links-sw" class="hidden" title="Links"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" x="0px" y="0px" viewBox="0 0 70.6 85.3" style="enable-background:new 0 0 70.6 85.3;vertical-align:middle" xml:space="preserve" width="24" height="24">
|
|
<style type="text/css">.st0{fill:#939598;}</style>
|
|
<g>
|
|
<path class="st0" d="M36,0C12.8,2.2-22.4,14.6,19.6,32.5C40.7,41.4-30.6,14,35.9,9.8"></path>
|
|
<path class="st0" d="M34.5,85.3c23.2-2.2,58.4-14.6,16.4-32.5c-21.1-8.9,50.2,18.5-16.3,22.7"></path>
|
|
<path class="st0" d="M34.7,37.1c66.5-4.2-4.8-31.6,16.3-22.7c42.1,17.9,6.9,30.3-16.4,32.5h1.7c-66.2,4.4,4.8,31.6-16.3,22.7 c-42.1-17.9-6.9-30.3,16.4-32.5"></path>
|
|
</g>
|
|
</svg> Books</a></div><div class="jr-rhead f1 flexh"></div><div id="jr-tb2"><a id="jr-bkhelp-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Help with NLM PubReader">?</a><a id="jr-help-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Settings and typography in NLM PubReader"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 512 512" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M462,283.742v-55.485l-29.981-10.662c-11.431-4.065-20.628-12.794-25.274-24.001 c-0.002-0.004-0.004-0.009-0.006-0.013c-4.659-11.235-4.333-23.918,0.889-34.903l13.653-28.724l-39.234-39.234l-28.72,13.652 c-10.979,5.219-23.68,5.546-34.908,0.889c-0.005-0.002-0.01-0.003-0.014-0.005c-11.215-4.65-19.933-13.834-24-25.273L283.741,50 h-55.484l-10.662,29.981c-4.065,11.431-12.794,20.627-24.001,25.274c-0.005,0.002-0.009,0.004-0.014,0.005 c-11.235,4.66-23.919,4.333-34.905-0.889l-28.723-13.653l-39.234,39.234l13.653,28.721c5.219,10.979,5.545,23.681,0.889,34.91 c-0.002,0.004-0.004,0.009-0.006,0.013c-4.649,11.214-13.834,19.931-25.271,23.998L50,228.257v55.485l29.98,10.661 c11.431,4.065,20.627,12.794,25.274,24c0.002,0.005,0.003,0.01,0.005,0.014c4.66,11.236,4.334,23.921-0.888,34.906l-13.654,28.723 l39.234,39.234l28.721-13.652c10.979-5.219,23.681-5.546,34.909-0.889c0.005,0.002,0.01,0.004,0.014,0.006 c11.214,4.649,19.93,13.833,23.998,25.271L228.257,462h55.484l10.595-29.79c4.103-11.538,12.908-20.824,24.216-25.525 c0.005-0.002,0.009-0.004,0.014-0.006c11.127-4.628,23.694-4.311,34.578,0.863l28.902,13.738l39.234-39.234l-13.66-28.737 c-5.214-10.969-5.539-23.659-0.886-34.877c0.002-0.005,0.004-0.009,0.006-0.014c4.654-11.225,13.848-19.949,25.297-24.021 L462,283.742z M256,331.546c-41.724,0-75.548-33.823-75.548-75.546s33.824-75.547,75.548-75.547 c41.723,0,75.546,33.824,75.546,75.547S297.723,331.546,256,331.546z"></path></svg></a><a id="jr-fip-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Find"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 550 600" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path fill="none" stroke="#000" stroke-width="36" stroke-linecap="round" style="fill:#FFF" d="m320,350a153,153 0 1,0-2,2l170,170m-91-117 110,110-26,26-110-110"></path></svg></a><a id="jr-cmap-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Table of Contents"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M20,20h10v8H20V20zM36,20h44v8H36V20zM20,37.33h10v8H20V37.33zM36,37.33h44v8H36V37.33zM20,54.66h10v8H20V54.66zM36,54.66h44v8H36V54.66zM20,72h10v8 H20V72zM36,72h44v8H36V72z"></path></svg></a></div></div></nav><nav id="jr-dash" class="noselect"><nav id="jr-dash" class="noselect"><div id="jr-pi" class="hidden"><a id="jr-pi-prev" class="hidden" title="Previous page"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M75,30 c-80,60 -80,0 0,60 c-30,-60 -30,0 0,-60"></path><text x="20" y="28" textLength="60" style="font-size:25px">Prev</text></svg></a><div class="pginfo">Page <i class="jr-pg-pn">0</i> of <i class="jr-pg-lp">0</i></div><a id="jr-pi-next" class="hidden" title="Next page"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M25,30c80,60 80,0 0,60 c30,-60 30,0 0,-60"></path><text x="20" y="28" textLength="60" style="font-size:25px">Next</text></svg></a></div><div id="jr-is-tb"><a id="jr-is-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Switch between Figures/Tables strip and Progress bar"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><rect x="10" y="40" width="20" height="20"></rect><rect x="40" y="40" width="20" height="20"></rect><rect x="70" y="40" width="20" height="20"></rect></svg></a></div><nav id="jr-istrip" class="istrip hidden"><a id="jr-is-prev" href="#" class="hidden" title="Previous"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M80,40 60,65 80,90 70,90 50,65 70,40z M50,40 30,65 50,90 40,90 20,65 40,40z"></path><text x="35" y="25" textLength="60" style="font-size:25px">Prev</text></svg></a><a id="jr-is-next" href="#" class="hidden" title="Next"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M20,40 40,65 20,90 30,90 50,65 30,40z M50,40 70,65 50,90 60,90 80,65 60,40z"></path><text x="15" y="25" textLength="60" style="font-size:25px">Next</text></svg></a></nav><nav id="jr-progress"></nav></nav></nav><aside id="jr-links-p" class="hidden flexv"><div class="tb sk-htbar flexh"><div><a class="jr-p-close btn wsprkl">Done</a></div><div class="title-text f1">NCBI Bookshelf</div></div><div class="cnt lol f1"><a href="/books/">Home</a><a href="/books/browse/">Browse All Titles</a><a class="btn share" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573937/"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 33 33" style="vertical-align:middle" width="24" height="24" preserveAspectRatio="none"><g><path d="M 17.996,32L 12,32 L 12,16 l-4,0 l0-5.514 l 4-0.002l-0.006-3.248C 11.993,2.737, 13.213,0, 18.512,0l 4.412,0 l0,5.515 l-2.757,0 c-2.063,0-2.163,0.77-2.163,2.209l-0.008,2.76l 4.959,0 l-0.585,5.514L 18,16L 17.996,32z"></path></g></svg> Share on Facebook</a><a class="btn share" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK573937/&text=Management%20of%20breech%20presentation"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 33 33" style="vertical-align:middle" width="24" height="24"><g><path d="M 32,6.076c-1.177,0.522-2.443,0.875-3.771,1.034c 1.355-0.813, 2.396-2.099, 2.887-3.632 c-1.269,0.752-2.674,1.299-4.169,1.593c-1.198-1.276-2.904-2.073-4.792-2.073c-3.626,0-6.565,2.939-6.565,6.565 c0,0.515, 0.058,1.016, 0.17,1.496c-5.456-0.274-10.294-2.888-13.532-6.86c-0.565,0.97-0.889,2.097-0.889,3.301 c0,2.278, 1.159,4.287, 2.921,5.465c-1.076-0.034-2.088-0.329-2.974-0.821c-0.001,0.027-0.001,0.055-0.001,0.083 c0,3.181, 2.263,5.834, 5.266,6.438c-0.551,0.15-1.131,0.23-1.73,0.23c-0.423,0-0.834-0.041-1.235-0.118 c 0.836,2.608, 3.26,4.506, 6.133,4.559c-2.247,1.761-5.078,2.81-8.154,2.81c-0.53,0-1.052-0.031-1.566-0.092 c 2.905,1.863, 6.356,2.95, 10.064,2.95c 12.076,0, 18.679-10.004, 18.679-18.68c0-0.285-0.006-0.568-0.019-0.849 C 30.007,8.548, 31.12,7.392, 32,6.076z"></path></g></svg> Share on Twitter</a></div></aside><aside id="jr-cmap-p" class="hidden flexv"><div class="tb sk-htbar flexh"><div><a class="jr-p-close btn wsprkl">Done</a></div><div class="title-text f1">In Page Navigation</div></div><div class="cnt lol f1"><a href="/books/n/niceercollect/?report=reader">NICE Evidence Reviews Collection</a><a class="current">Title Information</a></div></aside><aside id="jr-help-p" class="hidden flexv"><div class="tb sk-htbar flexh"><div><a class="jr-p-close btn wsprkl">Done</a></div><div class="title-text f1">Settings</div></div><div class="cnt f1"><div id="jr-typo-p" class="typo"><div><a class="sf btn wsprkl">A-</a><a class="lf btn wsprkl">A+</a></div><div><a class="bcol-auto btn wsprkl"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 200 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><text x="10" y="70" style="font-size:60px;font-family: Trebuchet MS, ArialMT, Arial, sans-serif" textLength="180">AUTO</text></svg></a><a class="bcol-1 btn wsprkl"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M15,25 85,25zM15,40 85,40zM15,55 85,55zM15,70 85,70z"></path></svg></a><a class="bcol-2 btn wsprkl"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M5,25 45,25z M55,25 95,25zM5,40 45,40z M55,40 95,40zM5,55 45,55z M55,55 95,55zM5,70 45,70z M55,70 95,70z"></path></svg></a></div></div><div class="lol"><a class="" href="/books/NBK573937/?report=classic">Switch to classic view</a><a href="/books/n/niceng201er13/pdf/">PDF (2.2M)</a><a href="/books/n/niceng201er13/toc/?report=printable">Print View</a></div></div></aside><aside id="jr-bkhelp-p" class="hidden flexv"><div class="tb sk-htbar flexh"><div><a class="jr-p-close btn wsprkl">Done</a></div><div class="title-text f1">Help</div></div><div class="cnt f1 lol"><a id="jr-helpobj-sw" data-path="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/" data-href="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/img/bookshelf/help.xml" href="">Help</a><a href="mailto:info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov?subject=PubReader%20feedback%20%2F%20NBK573937%20%2F%20sid%3ACE8B5AF87C7FFCB1_0191SID%20%2F%20phid%3ACE8EEF507D7068E100000000006A0059.4">Send us feedback</a><a id="jr-about-sw" data-path="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/" data-href="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/img/bookshelf/about.xml" href="">About PubReader</a></div></aside><aside id="jr-objectbox" class="thidden hidden"><div class="jr-objectbox-close wsprkl">✘</div><div class="jr-objectbox-inner cnt"><div class="jr-objectbox-drawer"></div></div></aside><nav id="jr-pm-left" class="hidden"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 40 800" preserveAspectRatio="none"><text font-stretch="ultra-condensed" x="800" y="-15" text-anchor="end" transform="rotate(90)" font-size="18" letter-spacing=".1em">Previous Page</text></svg></nav><nav id="jr-pm-right" class="hidden"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 40 800" preserveAspectRatio="none"><text font-stretch="ultra-condensed" x="800" y="-15" text-anchor="end" transform="rotate(90)" font-size="18" letter-spacing=".1em">Next Page</text></svg></nav><nav id="jr-fip" class="hidden"><nav id="jr-fip-term-p"><input type="search" placeholder="search this page" id="jr-fip-term" autocorrect="off" autocomplete="off" /><a id="jr-fip-mg" class="wsprkl btn" title="Find"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 550 600" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path fill="none" stroke="#000" stroke-width="36" stroke-linecap="round" style="fill:#FFF" d="m320,350a153,153 0 1,0-2,2l170,170m-91-117 110,110-26,26-110-110"></path></svg></a><a id="jr-fip-done" class="wsprkl btn" title="Dismiss find">✘</a></nav><nav id="jr-fip-info-p"><a id="jr-fip-prev" class="wsprkl btn" title="Jump to previuos match">◀</a><button id="jr-fip-matches">no matches yet</button><a id="jr-fip-next" class="wsprkl btn" title="Jump to next match">▶</a></nav></nav></div><div id="jr-epub-interstitial" class="hidden"></div><div id="jr-content"><article data-type="main"><div class="main-content lit-style"><div class="fm-sec bkr_bottom_sep"><div class="bkr_thumb"><a href="https://www.nice.org.uk" title="National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)" class="img_link icnblk_img" ref="pagearea=logo&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=publisher"><img class="source-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/bookshelf/thumbs/th-niceng201er13-lrg.png" alt="Cover of Management of breech presentation" /></a></div><div class="bkr_bib"><h1 id="_NBK573937_"><span itemprop="name">Management of breech presentation</span></h1><div class="subtitle">Antenatal care</div><p><b>Evidence review M</b></p><p><i>NICE Guideline, No. 201</i></p><p class="contrib-group"><h4>Authors</h4><span itemprop="author">National Guideline Alliance (UK)</span>.</p><div class="half_rhythm">London: <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk" ref="pagearea=meta&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=publisher"><span itemprop="publisher">National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)</span></a>; <span itemprop="datePublished">2021 Aug</span>.<div class="small">ISBN-13: <span itemprop="isbn">978-1-4731-4227-5</span></div></div><div><a href="/books/about/copyright/">Copyright</a> © NICE 2021.</div></div><div class="bkr_clear"></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1"><h2 id="_niceng201er13_s1_">Management of breech presentation</h2><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1"><h3>Review question</h3><p>What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</p><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.1"><h4>Introduction</h4><p>Breech presentation of the fetus in late pregnancy may result in prolonged or obstructed labour with resulting risks to both woman and fetus. Interventions to correct breech presentation (to cephalic) before labour and birth are important for the woman’s and the baby’s health. The aim of this review is to determine the most effective way of managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.2"><h4>Summary of the protocol</h4><p>Please see <a class="figpopup" href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-figpopup="figniceng201er13tab1" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13tab1">Table 1</a> for a summary of the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) characteristics of this review.</p><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng201er13tab1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 1" class="img_link icnblk_img figpopup" rid-figpopup="figniceng201er13tab1" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13tab1"><img class="small-thumb" src="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab1/?report=thumb" src-large="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab1/?report=previmg" alt="Table 1. Summary of the protocol (PICO table)." /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng201er13.tab1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13tab1">Table 1</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Summary of the protocol (PICO table). </p></div></div><p>For further details see the review protocol in <a href="#niceng201er13.appa">appendix A</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.3"><h4>Methods and process</h4><p>This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction-and-overview" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Developing NICE guidelines: the manual</a>
|
|
<u>2014</u>. Methods specific to this review question are described in the review protocol in <a href="#niceng201er13.appa">appendix A</a>.</p><p>Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/about/who-we-are/policies-and-procedures" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">conflicts of interest policy</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.4"><h4>Clinical evidence</h4><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.4.1"><h5>Included studies</h5><p>Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for this review.</p><p>The included studies are summarised in <a class="figpopup" href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-figpopup="figniceng201er13tab2" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13tab2">Table 2</a>.</p><p>Three studies reported on external cephalic version (ECV) versus no intervention (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref9" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref9">Dafallah 2004</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref16">Hofmeyr 1983</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref27" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref27">Rita 2011</a>). One study reported on a 4-arm trial comparing acupuncture, sweeping of fetal membranes, acupuncture plus sweeping, and no intervention (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1">Andersen 2013</a>). Two studies reported on postural management versus no intervention (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref7" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref7">Chenia 1987</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref30" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref30">Smith 1999</a>).</p><p>Seven studies reported on ECV plus anaesthesia (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6">Chalifoux 2017</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11">Dugoff 1999</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18">Khaw 2015</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22">Mancuso 2000</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29">Schorr 1997</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31">Sullivan 2009</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36">Weiniger 2010</a>). Of these studies, 1 study compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus other dosages of the same anaesthetic (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6">Chalifoux 2017</a>); 4 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV only (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11">Dugoff 1999</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22">Mancuso 2000</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29">Schorr 1997</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36">Weiniger 2010</a>); and 2 studies compared ECV plus anaesthesia to ECV plus a different anaesthetic (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18">Khaw 2015</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31">Sullivan 2009</a>).</p><p>Ten studies reported ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2">Brocks 1984</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13">Fernandez 1997</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14">Hindawi 2005</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17">Impey 2005</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21">Mahomed 1991</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23">Marquette 1996</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26">Nor Azlin 2005</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28">Robertson 1987</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32">Van Dorsten 1981</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34">Vani 2009</a>). Of these studies, 5 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV plus placebo (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13">Fernandez 1997</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17">Impey 2005</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23">Marquette 1996</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26">Nor Azlin 2005</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34">Vani 2009</a>); 1 study compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to ECV alone (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28">Robertson 1987</a>); and 4 studies compared ECV plus a β2 receptor agonist to no intervention (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2">Brocks 1984</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14">Hindawi 2005</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21">Mahomed 1991</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32">Van Dorsten 1981</a>).</p><p>One study reported on ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker versus ECV plus placebo (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref19" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref19">Kok 2008</a>). Two studies reported on ECV plus β2 receptor agonist versus ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref8">Collaris 2009</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref24" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref24">Mohamed Ismail 2008</a>). Four studies reported on ECV plus a µ-receptor agonist (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5">Burgos 2016</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20">Liu 2016</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25">Munoz 2014</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35">Wang 2017</a>), of which 3 compared against ECV plus placebo (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20">Liu 2016</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25">Munoz 2014</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35">Wang 2017</a>) and 1 compared to ECV plus nitrous oxide (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5">Burgos 2016</a>).</p><p>Four studies reported on ECV plus nitroglycerin (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3">Bujold 2003a</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4">Bujold 2003b</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12">El-Sayed 2004</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15">Hilton 2009</a>), of which 2 compared it to ECV plus β2 receptor agonist (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4">Bujold 2003b</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12">El-Sayed 2004</a>) and compared it to ECV plus placebo (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3">Bujold 2003a</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15">Hilton 2009</a>). One study compared ECV plus amnioinfusion versus ECV alone (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref10" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref10">Diguisto 2018</a>) and 1 study compared ECV plus talcum powder to ECV plus gel (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref33" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref33">Vallikkannu 2014</a>).</p><p>One study was conducted in Australia (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref30" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref30">Smith 1999</a>); 4 studies in Canada (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3">Bujold 2003a</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4">Bujold 2003b</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15">Hilton 2009</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23">Marquette 1996</a>); 2 studies in China (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20">Liu 2016</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35">Wang 2017</a>); 2 studies in Denmark (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1">Andersen 2013</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2">Brocks 1984</a>); 1 study in France (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref10" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref10">Diguisto 2018</a>); 1 study in Hong Kong (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18">Khaw 2015</a>); 1 study in India (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref27" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref27">Rita 2011</a>); 1 study in Israel (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36">Weiniger 2010</a>); 1 study in Jordan (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14">Hindawi 2005</a>); 5 studies in Malaysia (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref8">Collaris 2009</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref24" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref24">Mohamed Ismail 2008</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26">Nor Azlin 2005</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref33" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref33">Vallikkannu 2014</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34">Vani 2009</a>); 1 study in South Africa (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref16">Hofmeyr 1983</a>); 2 studies in Spain (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5">Burgos 2016</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25">Munoz 2014</a>); 1 study in Sudan (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref9" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref9">Dafallah 2004</a>); 1 study in The Netherlands (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref19" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref19">Kok 2008</a>); 2 studies in the UK (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17">Impey 2005</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref7" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref7">Chenia 1987</a>); 9 studies in US (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6">Chalifoux 2017</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11">Dugoff 1999</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12">El-Sayed 2004</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13">Fernandez 1997</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22">Mancuso 2000</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28">Robertson 1987</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29">Schorr 1997</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31">Sullivan 2009</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32">Van Dorsten 1981</a>); and 1 study in Zimbabwe (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21">Mahomed 1991</a>).</p><p>The majority of studies were 2-arm trials, but there was one 3-arm trial (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18">Khaw 2015</a>) and two 4-arm trials (<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1">Andersen 2013</a>, <a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6">Chalifoux 2017</a>). All studies were conducted in a hospital or an outpatient ward connected to a hospital.</p><p>See the literature search strategy in <a href="#niceng201er13.appb">appendix B</a> and study selection flow chart in <a href="#niceng201er13.appc">appendix C</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.4.2"><h5>Excluded studies</h5><p>Studies not included in this review with reasons for their exclusions are provided in <a href="#niceng201er13.appk">appendix K</a>.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.5"><h4>Summary of clinical studies included in the evidence review</h4><p>Summaries of the studies that were included in this review are presented in <a class="figpopup" href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-figpopup="figniceng201er13tab2" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13tab2">Table 2</a>.</p><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng201er13tab2"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 2" class="img_link icnblk_img figpopup" rid-figpopup="figniceng201er13tab2" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13tab2"><img class="small-thumb" src="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab2/?report=thumb" src-large="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab2/?report=previmg" alt="Table 2. Summary of included studies." /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng201er13.tab2"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13tab2">Table 2</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Summary of included studies. </p></div></div><p>See the full evidence tables in <a href="#niceng201er13.appd">appendix D</a> and the forest plots in <a href="#niceng201er13.appe">appendix E</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.6"><h4>Quality assessment of clinical outcomes included in the evidence review</h4><p>See the evidence profiles in <a href="#niceng201er13.appf">appendix F</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.7"><h4>Economic evidence</h4><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.7.1"><h5>Included studies</h5><p>A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.</p><p>A single economic search was undertaken for all topics included in the scope of this guideline. See <a href="/books/NBK573937/bin/niceng201er13_bm2.pdf">supplementary material 2</a> for details.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.7.2"><h5>Excluded studies</h5><p>Economic studies not included in this review are listed, and reasons for their exclusion are provided in <a href="#niceng201er13.appk">appendix K</a>.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.8"><h4>Summary of studies included in the economic evidence review</h4><p>No economic studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.9"><h4>Economic model</h4><p>No economic modelling was undertaken for this review because the committee agreed that other topics were higher priorities for economic evaluation.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10"><h4>Evidence statements</h4><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1"><h5>Clinical evidence statements</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1"><h5>Comparison 1. Complementary therapy versus control (no intervention)</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.1.2.1"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.74 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.43).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.29).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.19 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.62).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.40 (0.08 to 2.01).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.01 to 7.78).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=200) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (0.01 to 8.09).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.1.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2"><h5>Comparison 2. Complementary therapy versus Other treatment</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.1.2.1"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.22).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.07).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.94).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.03 to 3.12).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.22).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.12 to 4.02).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=207) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=204) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture and acupuncture plus membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=203) showed that there is no clinically important difference between acupuncture plus membrane sweeping and membrane sweeping on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.2.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3"><h5>Comparison 3. ECV versus no ECV</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.53 to 2.18).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV over no ECV on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.67 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.31).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1.2.2"><h5>Breech vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=680) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.29 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.84).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1.2.3"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.20).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=60) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on admission to SCBU//NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.82).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low evidence from 3 RCTs (N=740) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV and no ECV on fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.73) p=0.18.</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV and no ECV on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.70).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.3.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4"><h5>Comparison 4. ECV + Amnioinfusion versus ECV only</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.74 (95% CI 0.74 to 4.12).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.1.2.1"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=109) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus amnioinfusion and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.19).</div></li></ul></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.2"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.2.1"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.2.2"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.2.3"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.3"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.3.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.4.3.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5"><h5>Comparison 5. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV only</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=210) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.41).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 5 RCTs (N=435) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.74).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1.2.2"><h5>Breech vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=108) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.10).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1.2.3"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=263) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.38).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=69) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus anaesthesia over ECV alone on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −1.80 (95% CI −2.53 to −1.07).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus anaesthesia and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.5.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6"><h5>Comparison 6. ECV + Anaesthesia versus ECV + Anaesthesia</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.74).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 0.05mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.28).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.23).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.50).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.79).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.24).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.50).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 2.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.28).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.17 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.61).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=120) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.37).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=119) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus 7.5mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl and ECV plus 10mg Bupivacaine plus 0.015mg Fentanyl on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.20).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.6.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7"><h5>Comparison 7. ECV + β2 agonist versus Control (no intervention)</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=256) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 4.83 (95% CI 3.27 to 7.11).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=265) showed that there no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.03 (95% CI 0.22 to 19.01).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1.2.2"><h5>Breech vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.38 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.69).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1.2.3"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=513) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over control (no intervention) on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.67).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=48) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.08 to 0.08).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.01) p=0.66.</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=208) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and control (no intervention) on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.10).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.7.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8"><h5>Comparison 8. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV only</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.62).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1.2.2"><h5>Breech vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=58) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.22 to 2.50).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1.2.3"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=172) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.27 to 2.28).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=114) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV only on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.21 to 4.75).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.8.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9"><h5>Comparison 9. ECV + β2 agonist versus ECV + Placebo</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.24 to 9.76).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.41 to 3.89).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1.2.2"><h5>Breech vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=227) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.97).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1.2.3"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 4 RCTs (N=532) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.92)</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=146) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.17 to 3.63).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=124) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.9.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10"><h5>Comparison 10. ECV + Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker versus ECV + Placebo</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.48).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.12).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.40).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: MD −0.20 (95% CI −0.70 to 0.30).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01) p=1.00.</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=310) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus placebo on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.52 (95% 0.05 to 5.02).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.10.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11"><h5>Comparison 11. ECV + Ca2+ channel blocker versus ECV + β2 agonist</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=90) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.98).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.89).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=132) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus β2 agonist over ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.91).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.05 to 5.22).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=176) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker and ECV plus β2 agonist on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.11.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12"><h5>Comparison 12. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV only</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>High quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.24).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=80) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.40).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=126) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV alone on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.12.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13"><h5>Comparison 13. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Placebo</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth after successful ECV</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>High quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.17).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section after successful ECV</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=98) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after successful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.33 to 2.84).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.2.3"><h5>Breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>High quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is a clinically important difference favouring ECV plus µ-receptor agonist over ECV plus placebo on breech vaginal birth after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.10 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.53).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.2.4"><h5>Caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=186) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on caesarean section after unsuccessful ECV in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.31).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=137) showed that there is no statistically significant difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus placebo on fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.03) p=1.00.</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.13.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14"><h5>Comparison 14. ECV + µ-receptor agonist versus ECV + Anaesthesia</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=92) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.29).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=212) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.34).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=129) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 2.30 (95% CI 0.21 to 24.74).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=255) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus µ-receptor agonist and ECV plus anaesthesia on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RD 0.00 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.02).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.14.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15"><h5>Comparison 15. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + Placebo</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 3 RCTs (N=224) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.16).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=99) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.22).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=125) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus placebo on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.15.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16"><h5>Comparison 16. ECV + Nitric oxide donor versus ECV + β2 agonist</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=74) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus β2 agonist and ECV plus nitric oxide donor on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.56 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.09).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 2 RCTs (N=97) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.47 to 2.05).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Very low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=59) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus nitric oxide donor and ECV plus β2 agonist on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.57).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.16.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17"><h5>Comparison 17. ECV + Talcum powder versus ECV + Gel</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.53).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.74).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.1.2.2"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.33).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=95) showed that there is no clinically important difference between ECV plus talcum powder and ECV plus gel on admission to SCBU/NICU in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.96 (95% CI 0.38 to 10.19).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.17.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18"><h5>Comparison 18. Postural management versus No postural management</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic presentation in labour in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.26 (95% CI 0.70 to 2.30).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1.2.1"><h5>Cephalic vaginal birth</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on cephalic vaginal birth in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.07).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1.2.2"><h5>Breech vaginal delivery</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on breech vaginal delivery in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.99).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1.2.3"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.31 to 1.52).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=76) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management and no postural management on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.03 to 2.03).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.18.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19"><h5>Comparison 19. Postural management + ECV versus ECV only</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.1"><h5>Critical outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.1.1"><h5>Cephalic presentation in labour</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.1.2"><h5>Method of birth</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.1.2.1"><h5>Caesarean section</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moderate quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on the number of caesarean sections in pregnant women with breech presentation: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.38).</div></li></ul></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.1.3"><h5>Admission to SCBU/NICU</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.1.4"><h5>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.1.5"><h5>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.2"><h5>Important outcomes</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.2.1"><h5>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Low quality evidence from 1 RCT (N=100) showed that there is no clinically important difference between postural management plus ECV and ECV only on Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes in pregnant women with breech presentation: Peto OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.00 to 6.55).</div></li></ul></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.1.19.2.2"><h5>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</h5><p>No evidence was identified to inform this outcome.</p></div></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.10.2"><h5>Economic evidence statements</h5><p>No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11"><h4>The committee’s discussion of the evidence</h4><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11.1"><h5>Interpreting the evidence</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11.1.1"><h5>The outcomes that matter most</h5><p>Provision of antenatal care is important for the health and wellbeing of both mother and baby with the aim of avoiding adverse pregnancy outcomes and enhancing maternal satisfaction and wellbeing. Breech presentation in labour may be associated with adverse outcomes for the fetus, which has contributed to an increased likelihood of caesarean birth. The committee therefore agreed that cephalic presentation in labour and method of birth were critical outcomes for the woman, and admission to SCBU/NICU, fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation, and infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age were critical outcomes for the baby. Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes and birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation were important outcomes for the baby.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11.1.2"><h5>The quality of the evidence</h5><p>The quality of the evidence for interventions for managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (that is breech presentation) in late pregnancy ranged from very low to high, with most of the evidence being of a very low or low quality.</p><p>This was predominately due to serious overall risk of bias in some outcomes; imprecision around the effect estimate in some outcomes; indirect population in some outcomes; and the presence of serious heterogeneity in some outcomes, which was unresolved by subgroup analysis. The majority of included studies had a small sample size, which contributed to imprecision around the effect estimate.</p><p>No evidence was identified to inform the outcomes of infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age and birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation.</p><p>There was no publication bias identified in the evidence. However, the committee noted the influence pharmacological developers may have in these trials as funders, and took this into account in their decision making.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11.1.3"><h5>Benefits and harms</h5><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11.1.3.1"><h5>ECV</h5><p>The committee discussed that in the case of breech presentation, a discussion with the woman about the different options and their potential benefits, harms and implications is needed to ensure an informed decision. The committee discussed that some women may prefer a breech vaginal birth or choose an elective caesarean birth, and that her preferences should be supported, in line with shared decision making.</p><p>The committee discussed that external cephalic version is standard practice for managing breech presentation in uncomplicated singleton pregnancies at or after 36+0 weeks. The committee discussed that there could be variation in the success rates of ECV based on the experience of the healthcare professional providing the ECV. There was some evidence supporting the use of ECV for managing a breech presentation in late pregnancy. The evidence showed ECV had a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and cephalic vaginal deliveries, when compared to no intervention. The committee noted that the evidence suggested that ECV was not harmful to the baby, although the effect estimate was imprecise relating to the relative rarity of the fetal death as an outcome.</p><p>Cephalic (head-down) vaginal birth is preferred by many women and the evidence suggests that external cephalic version is an effective way to achieve this. The evidence suggested ECV increased the chance for a cephalic vaginal birth and the committee agreed that it was important to explain this to the woman during her consultation.</p><p>The committee discussed the optimum timing for ECV. Timing of ECV must take into account the likelihood of the baby turning naturally before a woman commences labour and the possibility of the baby turning back to a breech presentation after ECV if it is done too early. The committee noted that in their experience, current practice was to perform ECV at 37 gestational weeks. The majority of the evidence demonstrating a benefit of ECV in this review involved ECV performed around 37 gestational weeks, although the review did not look for studies directly comparing different timings of ECV and their relative success rates.</p><p>The evidence in this review excluded women with previous complicated pregnancies, such as those with previous caesarean section or uterine surgery. The committee discussed that a previous caesarean section indicates a complicated pregnancy and that this population of women are not the focus of this guideline, which concentrates on women with uncomplicated pregnancies.</p><p>The committee’s recommendations align with other NICE guidance and cross references to the <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng192/chapter/Recommendations#planned-caesarean-birth" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">NICE guideline on caesarean birth</a> and the section on <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng121/chapter/Recommendations#breech-presenting-in-labour" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">breech presenting in labour in the NICE guideline on intrapartum care for women with existing medical conditions or obstetric complications and their babies</a> were made.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11.1.3.2"><h5>ECV combined with pharmacological agents</h5><p>There were some small studies comparing a variety of pharmacological agents (including β2 agonists, Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blockers, µ-receptor agonists and nitric oxide donors) given alongside ECV. Overall the evidence typically showed no clinically important benefit of adding any pharmacological agent to ECV except in comparisons with a control arm with no ECV where it was not possible to isolate the effect of the ECV versus the pharmacological agent. The evidence tended toward benefit most for β2 agonists and µ-receptor agonists however there was no consistent or high quality evidence of benefit even for these agents. The committee agreed that although these pharmacological agents are used in practice, there was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation supporting or refuting their use or on which pharmacological agent should be used.</p><p>The committee discussed that the evidence suggesting µ-receptor agonist, remifentanil, had a clinically important benefit in terms reducing breech vaginal births after unsuccessful ECV was biologically implausible. The committee noted that this pharmacological agent has strong sedative effects, depending on the dosage, and therefore studies comparing it to a placebo had possible design flaws as it would be obvious to all parties whether placebo or active drug had been received. The committee discussed that the risks associated with using remifentanil such as respiratory depression, likely outweigh any potential added benefit it may have on managing breech presentation.</p><p>There was some evidence comparing different anaesthetics together with ECV. Although there was little consistent evidence of benefit overall, one small study of low quality showed a combination of 2% lidocaine and epinephrine via epidural catheter (anaesthesia) with ECV showed a clinically important benefit in terms of cephalic presentations in labour and the method of birth. The committee discussed the evidence and agreed the use of anaesthesia via epidural catheter during ECV was uncommon practice in the UK and could be expensive, overall they agreed the strength of the evidence available was insufficient to support a change in practice.</p></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11.1.3.3"><h5>Postural management</h5><p>There was limited evidence on postural management as an intervention for managing breech presentation in late pregnancy, which showed no difference in effectiveness. Postural management was defined as ‘knee-chest position for 15 minutes, 3 times a day’. The committee agreed that in their experience women valued trying interventions at home first which might make postural management an attractive option for some women, however, there was no evidence that postural management was beneficial. The committee also noted that in their experience postural management can cause notable discomfort so it is not an intervention without disadvantages.</p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.11.2"><h5>Cost effectiveness and resource use</h5><p>A systematic review of the economic literature was conducted but no relevant studies were identified which were applicable to this review question.</p><p>The committee’s recommendations to offer external cephalic version reinforces current practice. The committee noted that, compared to no intervention, external cephalic version results in clinically important benefits and that there would also be overall downstream cost savings from lower adverse events. It was therefore the committee’s view that offering external cephalic version is cost effective and would not entail any resource impact.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.s1.1.rl.r1"><h4>References</h4><ul class="simple-list"><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1"><p id="p-678">
|
|
<strong>Andersen 2013</strong>
|
|
</p>Andersen,B.B., Knudsen,B., Lyndrup,J., Faelling,A.E., Illum,D., Johansen,M., Borgen,A., Jager,H., Bjerre,C., Secher,N.J., Acupuncture and/or sweeping of the fetal membranes before induction of labor: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial, Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 41, 555–560, 2013 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23612695" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23612695</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2"><p id="p-679">
|
|
<strong>Brocks 1984</strong>
|
|
</p>Brocks,V., Philipsen,T., Secher,N.J., A randomized trial of external cephalic version with tocolysis in late pregnancy, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 91, 653–656, 1984 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6743606" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 6743606</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3"><p id="p-680">
|
|
<strong>Bujold 2003</strong>
|
|
</p>Bujold, E., Boucher, M., Rinfret, D., Berman, S., Ferreira, E., Marquette, G. P., Sublingual nitroglycerin versus placebo as a tocolytic for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial in parous women, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 189, 1070–1073, 2003 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14586357" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 14586357</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4"><p id="p-681">
|
|
<strong>Bujold 2003</strong>
|
|
</p>Bujold, E., Marquette, G. P., Ferreira, E., Gauthier, R. J., Boucher, M., Sublingual nitroglycerin versus intravenous ritodrine as tocolytic for external cephalic version: a double-blinded randomized trial, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 188, 1454–7; discussion 1457-9, 2003 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12824978" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 12824978</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5"><p id="p-682">
|
|
<strong>Burgos 2016</strong>
|
|
</p>Burgos, J., Pijoan, J. I., Osuna, C., Cobos, P., Rodriguez, L., Centeno Mdel, M., Serna, R., Jimenez, A., Garcia, E., Fernandez-Llebrez, L., Melchor, J. C., Increased pain relief with remifentanil does not improve the success rate of external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 95, 547–54, 2016 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26830687" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26830687</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6"><p id="p-683">
|
|
<strong>Chalifoux 2017</strong>
|
|
</p>Chalifoux, L. A., Bauchat, J. R., Higgins, N., Toledo, P., Peralta, F. M., Farrer, J., Gerber, S. E., McCarthy, R. J., Sullivan, J. T., Effect of Intrathecal Bupivacaine Dose on the Success of External Cephalic Version for Breech Presentation: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Clinical Trial, Anesthesiology, 127, 625–632, 2017 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28723831" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28723831</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref7"><p id="p-684">
|
|
<strong>Chenia 1987</strong>
|
|
</p>Chenia, F., Crowther, C. A., Does advice to assume the knee-chest position reduce the incidence of breech presentation at delivery? A randomized clinical trial, Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 14, 75–78, 1987 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3311064" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 3311064</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref8"><p id="p-685">
|
|
<strong>Collaris 2009</strong>
|
|
</p>Collaris,R., Tan,P.C., Oral nifepidine versus subcutaneous terbutaline tocolysis for external cephalic version: a double-blind randomised trial, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 116, 74–80, 2009 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19087079" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19087079</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref9"><p id="p-686">
|
|
<strong>Dafallah 2004</strong>
|
|
</p>Dafallah,S.E., Elhag,S.M., The role of external cephalic version on the presentation at delivery, Saudi Medical Journal, 25, 386–388, 2004 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15048186" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 15048186</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref10"><p id="p-687">
|
|
<strong>Diguisto 2018</strong>
|
|
</p>Diguisto, C., Winer, N., Descriaud, C., Tavernier, E., Weymuller, V., Giraudeau, B., Perrotin, F., Amnioinfusion for women with a singleton breech presentation and a previous failed external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial, Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 31, 993–999, 2018 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28279119" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28279119</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11"><p id="p-688">
|
|
<strong>Dugoff 1999</strong>
|
|
</p>Dugoff, L., Stamm, C. A., Jones, O. W., 3rd, Mohling, S. I., Hawkins, J. L., The effect of spinal anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a randomized trial, Obstetrics and gynecology, 93, 345–9, 1999 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10074976" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 10074976</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12"><p id="p-689">
|
|
<strong>El-Sayed 2004</strong>
|
|
</p>El-Sayed, Y. Y., Pullen, K., Riley, E. T., Lyell, D., Druzin, M. L., Cohen, S. E., Chitkara, U., Randomized comparison of intravenous nitroglycerin and subcutaneous terbutaline for external cephalic version under tocolysis, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 191, 2051–2055, 2004 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15592291" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 15592291</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13"><p id="p-690">
|
|
<strong>Fernandez 1997</strong>
|
|
</p>Fernandez, C. O., Bloom, S. L., Smulian, J. C., Ananth, C. V., Wendel, G. D., Jr., A randomized placebo-controlled evaluation of terbutaline for external cephalic version, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 90, 775–9, 1997 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9351763" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 9351763</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14"><p id="p-691">
|
|
<strong>Hindawi 2005</strong>
|
|
</p>Hindawi,I., Value and pregnancy outcome of external cephalic version, Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 11, 633–639, 2005 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16700378" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 16700378</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15"><p id="p-692">
|
|
<strong>Hilton 2009</strong>
|
|
</p>Hilton, J., Allan, B., Swaby, C., Wahba, R., Jarrell, J., Wood, S., Ross, S., Tran, Q., Intravenous nitroglycerin for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 114, 560–7, 2009 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19701035" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19701035</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref16"><p id="p-693">
|
|
<strong>Hofmeyr 1983</strong>
|
|
</p>Hofmeyr,G.J., Effect of external cephalic version in late pregnancy on breech presentation and caesarean section rate: a controlled trial, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 90, 392–399, 1983 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6342657" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 6342657</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17"><p id="p-694">
|
|
<strong>Impey 2005</strong>
|
|
</p>Impey,L., Pandit,M., Tocolysis for repeat external cephalic version in breech presentation at term: a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 112, 627–631, 2005 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15842288" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 15842288</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18"><p id="p-695">
|
|
<strong>Khaw 2015</strong>
|
|
</p>Khaw, K. S., Lee, S. W., Ngan Kee, W. D., Law, L. W., Lau, T. K., Ng, F. F., Leung, T. Y., Randomized trial of anaesthetic interventions in external cephalic version for breech presentation, British Journal of Anaesthesia, 114, 944–50, 2015 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25962611" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 25962611</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref19"><p id="p-696">
|
|
<strong>Kok 2008</strong>
|
|
</p>Kok,M., Bais,J.M., van Lith,J.M., Papatsonis,D.M., Kleiverda,G., Hanny,D., Doornbos,J.P., Mol,B.W., van der Post,J.A., Nifedipine as a uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 112, 271–276, 2008 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18669722" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18669722</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20"><p id="p-697">
|
|
<strong>Liu 2016</strong>
|
|
</p>Liu, X., Xue, A., A randomized trial of remifentanil for analgesia in external cephalic version for breech presentation, Medicine (Baltimore), 95, e5483, 2016 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5266002/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5266002</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27930530" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27930530</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21"><p id="p-698">
|
|
<strong>Mahomed 1991</strong>
|
|
</p>Mahomed,K., Seeras,R., Coulson,R., External cephalic version at term. A randomized controlled trial using tocolysis, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 98, 8–13, 1991 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1998637" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 1998637</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22"><p id="p-699">
|
|
<strong>Mancuso 2000</strong>
|
|
</p>Mancuso, K. M., Yancey, M. K., Murphy, J. A., Markenson, G. R., Epidural analgesia for cephalic version: a randomized trial, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 95, 648–651, 2000 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10775722" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 10775722</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23"><p id="p-700">
|
|
<strong>Marquette 1996</strong>
|
|
</p>Marquette,G.P., Boucher,M., Theriault,D., Rinfret,D., Does the use of a tocolytic agent affect the success rate of external cephalic version?, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175, 859–861, 1996 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8885736" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 8885736</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref24"><p id="p-701">
|
|
<strong>Mohamed Ismail 2008</strong>
|
|
</p>Mohamed Ismail, N. A., Ibrahim, M., Mohd Naim, N., Mahdy, Z. A., Jamil, M. A., Mohd Razi, Z. R., Nifedipine versus terbutaline for tocolysis in external cephalic version, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics, 102, 263–266, 2008 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18554601" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18554601</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25"><p id="p-702">
|
|
<strong>Munoz 2014</strong>
|
|
</p>Munoz, H., Guerra, S., Perez-Vaquero, P., Valero Martinez, C., Aizpuru, F., Lopez-Picado, A., Remifentanil versus placebo for analgesia during external cephalic version: a randomised clinical trial, International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 23, 52–7, 2014 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24388737" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 24388737</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26"><p id="p-703">
|
|
<strong>NorAzlin 2005</strong>
|
|
</p>Nor Azlin,M.I., Haliza,H., Mahdy,Z.A., Anson,I., Fahya,M.N., Jamil,M.A., Tocolysis in term breech external cephalic version, International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 88, 5–8, 2005 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15617697" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 15617697</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref27"><p id="p-704">
|
|
<strong>Rita 2011</strong>
|
|
</p>Rita, Mehboobas,, Sultana, S., Khurshid, R., A randomized trial of external cephalic version in late pregnancy, JK Science, 14, 25–29, 2011</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28"><p id="p-705">
|
|
<strong>Robertson 1987</strong>
|
|
</p>Robertson, A. W., Kopelman, J. N., Read, J. A., Duff, P., Magelssen, D. J., Dashow, E. E., External cephalic version at term: is a tocolytic necessary?, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 70, 896–9, 1987 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3684126" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 3684126</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29"><p id="p-706">
|
|
<strong>Schorr 1997</strong>
|
|
</p>Schorr, S. J., Speights, S. E., Ross, E. L., Bofill, J. A., Rust, O. A., Norman, P. F., Morrison, J. C., A randomized trial of epidural anesthesia to improve external cephalic version success, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 177, 1133–7, 1997 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9396908" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 9396908</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref30"><p id="p-707">
|
|
<strong>Smith 1999</strong>
|
|
</p>Smith, C., Crowther, C., Wilkinson, C., Pridmore, B., Robinson, J., Knee-chest postural management for breech at term: a randomized controlled trial, Birth, 26, 71–5, 1999 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10687569" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 10687569</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31"><p id="p-708">
|
|
<strong>Sullivan 2009</strong>
|
|
</p>Sullivan,J.T., Grobman,W.A., Bauchat,J.R., Scavone,B.M., Grouper,S., McCarthy,R.J., Wong,C.A., A randomized controlled trial of the effect of combined spinal-epidural analgesia on the success of external cephalic version for breech presentation, International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 18, 328–334, 2009 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19682886" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19682886</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32"><p id="p-709">
|
|
<strong>VanDorsten 1981</strong>
|
|
</p>Van Dorsten,J.P., Schifrin,B.S., Wallace,R.L., Randomized control trial of external cephalic version with tocolysis in late pregnancy, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 141, 417–424, 1981 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7282824" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 7282824</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref33"><p id="p-710">
|
|
<strong>Vallikkannu 2014</strong>
|
|
</p>Vallikkannu, N., Nadzratulaiman, W. N., Omar, S. Z., Si Lay, K., Tan, P. C., Talcum powder or aqueous gel to aid external cephalic version: a randomised controlled trial, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14, 49, 2014 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3932111/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3932111</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24468078" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 24468078</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34"><p id="p-711">
|
|
<strong>Vani 2009</strong>
|
|
</p>Vani,S., Lau,S.Y., Lim,B.K., Omar,S.Z., Tan,P.C., Intravenous salbutamol for external cephalic version, International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 104, 28–31, 2009 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18922525" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18922525</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35"><p id="p-712">
|
|
<strong>Wang 2017</strong>
|
|
</p>Wang, Z. H., Yang, Y., Xu, G. P., Remifentanil analgesia during external cephalic version for breech presentation in nulliparous women at term: A randomized controlled trial, Medicine (Baltimore), 96, e6256, 2017 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5369890/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5369890</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28296735" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28296735</span></a>]</div></p></li><li class="half_rhythm"><p><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36"><p id="p-713">
|
|
<strong>Weiniger 2010</strong>
|
|
</p>Weiniger,C.F., Ginosar,Y., Elchalal,U., Sela,H.Y., Weissman,C., Ezra,Y., Randomized controlled trial of external cephalic version in term multiparae with or without spinal analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, 104, 613–618, 2010 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20338954" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 20338954</span></a>]</div></p></li></ul></div></div></div><div id="appendixesappgroup1"><h2 id="_appendixesappgroup1_">Appendices</h2><div id="niceng201er13.appa"><h3>Appendix A. Review protocols</h3><p id="niceng201er13.appa.et1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/bin/niceng201er13-appa-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Review protocol for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 260K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng201er13.appb"><h3>Appendix B. Literature search strategies</h3><p id="niceng201er13.appb.et1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/bin/niceng201er13-appb-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Literature search strategies for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 281K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng201er13.appc"><h3>Appendix C. Clinical evidence study selection</h3><p id="niceng201er13.appc.et1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/bin/niceng201er13-appc-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Clinical study selection for: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 113K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng201er13.appd"><h3>Appendix D. Clinical evidence tables</h3><p id="niceng201er13.appd.et1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/bin/niceng201er13-appd-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Clinical evidence tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 1.2M)</span></p></div><div id="niceng201er13.appe"><h3>Appendix E. Forest plots</h3><p id="niceng201er13.appe.et1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/bin/niceng201er13-appe-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Forest plots for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 678K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng201er13.appf"><h3>Appendix F. GRADE tables</h3><p id="niceng201er13.appf.et1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/bin/niceng201er13-appf-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">GRADE tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 1.0M)</span></p></div><div id="niceng201er13.appg"><h3>Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection</h3><div id="niceng201er13.appg.s1"><h4>Economic evidence study selection for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</h4><p>No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.apph"><h3>Appendix H. Economic evidence tables</h3><div id="niceng201er13.apph.s1"><h4>Economic evidence tables for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</h4><p>No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.appi"><h3>Appendix I. Economic evidence profiles</h3><div id="niceng201er13.appi.s1"><h4>Economic evidence profiles for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</h4><p>No economic evidence was identified which was applicable to this review question.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.appj"><h3>Appendix J. Economic analysis</h3><div id="niceng201er13.appj.s1"><h4>Economic evidence analysis for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</h4><p>No economic analysis was conducted for this review question.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.appk"><h3>Appendix K. Excluded studies</h3><div id="niceng201er13.appk.s1"><h4>Excluded clinical and economic studies for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</h4></div><div id="niceng201er13.appk.s2"><h4>Clinical studies</h4><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng201er13appktab1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.appk.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 24" class="img_link icnblk_img figpopup" rid-figpopup="figniceng201er13appktab1" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13appktab1"><img class="small-thumb" src="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.appk.tab1/?report=thumb" src-large="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.appk.tab1/?report=previmg" alt="Table 24. Excluded studies." /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng201er13.appk.tab1"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.appk.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng201er13appktab1">Table 24</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Excluded studies. </p></div></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.appk.s3"><h4>Economic studies</h4><p>No economic evidence was identified for this review.</p></div></div><div id="niceng201er13.appl"><h3>Appendix L. Research recommendations</h3><div id="niceng201er13.appl.s1"><h4>Research recommendations for review question: What is the most effective way of managing a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) in late pregnancy?</h4><p>No research recommendations were made for this review question.</p></div></div></div></div><div class="fm-sec"><div><p>Final</p></div><div><p>Evidence reviews underpinning recommendation 1.2.38</p><p>These evidence reviews were developed by the National Guideline Alliance, which is a part of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists</p></div><div><p><b>Disclaimer</b>: The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.</p><p>Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.</p><p>NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the <a href="http://wales.gov.uk/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Welsh Government</a>, <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Scottish Government</a>, and <a href="http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Northern Ireland Executive</a>. All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.</p></div><div class="half_rhythm"><a href="/books/about/copyright/">Copyright</a> © NICE 2021.</div><div class="small"><span class="label">Bookshelf ID: NBK573937</span><span class="label">PMID: <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34524741" title="PubMed record of this title" ref="pagearea=meta&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">34524741</a></span></div></div><div class="small-screen-prev"></div><div class="small-screen-next"></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng201er13tab1"><div id="niceng201er13.tab1" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 1</span><span class="title">Summary of the protocol (PICO table)</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng201er13.tab1_lrgtbl__"><table class="no_bottom_margin"><tbody><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng201er13.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng201er13.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">All pregnant women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36<sup>+0</sup> weeks</td></tr><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng201er13.tab1_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Intervention</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng201er13.tab1_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Cephalic version by the following listed interventions will be considered:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Complementary therapy
|
|
<ul class="circle"><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Acupressure</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Acupuncture</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Moxibustion</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Reflexology</div></li></ul></div></li></ul>
|
|
Note: complementary therapy interventions will be analysed separately.
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>External cephalic version (ECV)
|
|
<ul class="circle"><li class="half_rhythm"><div>ECV only</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>ECV + additional component (for example, fetal acoustic stimulation, pharmacological [for example, beta-2 agonist, Ca<sup>2+</sup> channel blocker, NSAID, oxytocin receptor anatagonist])</div></li></ul></div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Postural management (for example, knee-chest, supine)</div></li></ul>
|
|
Any combination of these interventions</td></tr><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng201er13.tab1_1_1_3_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Comparison</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng201er13.tab1_1_1_3_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<b>For all between-intervention comparisons:</b>
|
|
<dl class="temp-labeled-list"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>1.</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Any listed intervention vs any other listed intervention</p></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>2.</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Any listed intervention vs control (including no treatment, placebo or sham treatment)</p></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>3.</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Any combination of listed interventions vs one of the interventions</p></dd></dl></dl>
|
|
<b>For postural management:</b>
|
|
<dl class="temp-labeled-list"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>4.</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Specific form of postural management vs another form of postural management</p></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>5.</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Specific form of postural management vs daily walking</p></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>6.</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Specific form of postural management vs no treatment</p></dd></dl></dl>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng201er13.tab1_1_1_4_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Outcomes</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng201er13.tab1_1_1_4_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<b>Critical</b>
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth
|
|
<ul class="circle"><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Breech vaginal birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Caesarean birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic vaginal birth</div></li></ul></div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Infant death up to 4 weeks chronological age</div></li></ul>
|
|
<b>Important</b>
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Birth before 39<sup>+0</sup> weeks of gestation</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="tblwrap-foot"><div><dl class="temp-labeled-list small"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt></dt><dd><div><p class="no_margin">ECV: external cephalic version; NICU: neonatal intensive care unit; NSAID: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug; SCBU: special care baby unit.</p></div></dd></dl></dl></div></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng201er13tab2"><div id="niceng201er13.tab2" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 2</span><span class="title">Summary of included studies</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng201er13.tab2_lrgtbl__"><table class="no_bottom_margin"><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Study</th><th id="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population</th><th id="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Intervention</th><th id="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Comparison</th><th id="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Outcomes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref1">Andersen 2013</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Denmark</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=407 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 30.5 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 41 weeks (±0.7)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Acupuncture</p>
|
|
<p>Needles placed bilaterally for at least 30 minutes</p>
|
|
<p>Sweeping of fetal membrane</p>
|
|
<p>Performed by investigator</p>
|
|
<p>Acupuncture + sweeping</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref2">Brocks 1984</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Denmark</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=65 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: Not mentioned</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Ritodrine</p>
|
|
<p>IV ritodrine, administered for 15 minutes</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref3">Bujold 2003a</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Canada</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=99 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 29.5 years</p>
|
|
<p>Median maternal gestational age: 37.5 weeks (min 36.0, max 40.7)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Nitroglycerin</p>
|
|
<p>Two sublingual sprays of nitroglycerin (400 micrograms)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>Sublingual placebo spray</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref4">Bujold 2003b</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Canada</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=74 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 31.6 years</p>
|
|
<p>Median maternal gestational age: 37.4 (min 36.1, max 39.3)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Ritodrine</p>
|
|
<p>IV ritodrine (10mg/mL) plus sublingual placebo</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Nitroglycerin</p>
|
|
<p>IV placebo plus sublingual nitroglycerin (400 micrograms)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref5">Burgos 2016</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Spain</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=120 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 34.95 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Remifentanil</p>
|
|
<p>Injectable solution or infusion of remifentanil (1mg vials)</p>
|
|
<p>Note: All ECVs were performed under tocolysis (either ritodrine 200μg/min for 30 minutes or 6.75mg atosiban, given as an IV bolus 2 min before procedure).</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Nitrous oxide</p>
|
|
<p>Medicinal gas mixture of 50% nitrous oxide and 50% oxygen</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref6">Chalifoux 2017</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=240 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Median maternal gestational age: 37.3 weeks [IQR 37 to 38]</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Bupivacaine 2.5mg + fentanyl 15 micrograms</p>
|
|
<p>ECV + Bupivacaine 5.0mg + fentanyl 15 micrograms</p>
|
|
<p>ECV + Bupivacaine 7.5mg + fentanyl 15 micrograms</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV + Bupivacaine 10mg + fentanyl 15 micrograms</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref7" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref7">Chenia 1987</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>UK</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=76 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 26.1 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38.4 weeks (±1.74)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Postural management</p>
|
|
<p>Knee-chest position for 15 minutes, three times a day, for 1 week</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref8">Collaris 2009</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Malaysia</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=90 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 30 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38 weeks (±1.0)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Nifedipine</p>
|
|
<p>Nifedipine tablet (10mg) + placebo injection</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Terbutaline</p>
|
|
<p>Placebo tablet + 0.5mL terbutaline injection (500 micrograms/mL)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref9" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref9">Dafallah 2004</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Sudan</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=620 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: Not mentioned</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV</p>
|
|
<p>Classic forward roll technique used, in slight Trendelenburg. Repeated up to 3 times at subsequent visits but not more than twice in one week.</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref10" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref10">Diguisto 2018</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>France</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=199 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 29.5 years</p>
|
|
<p>Median maternal gestational age: 37.1 weeks [IQR 36.1 to 37.8]</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Amnioinfusion</p>
|
|
<p>Transabdominal amnioinfusion with saline solution (500mL)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref11">Dugoff 1999</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=102 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 25 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38 weeks (±0.2)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Sufentanil</p>
|
|
<p>Sufentanil (10 micrograms)</p>
|
|
<p>0.25% bupivacaine (1mL) administered after lactated Ringer’s solution (500mL) + IV terbutaline (0.25mg)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref12">El-Sayed 2004</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=59 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 31.3 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38.4 weeks (±0.8)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Nitroglycerin</p>
|
|
<p>IV nitroglycerin (200 micrograms)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Terbutaline</p>
|
|
<p>Subcutaneous terbutaline injection (0.25mg)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref13">Fernandez 1997</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=103 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 24 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38.5 weeks (±1.6)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Terbutaline</p>
|
|
<p>Subcutaneous injection of terbutaline (0.25mg)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>Subcutaneous injection of placebo</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref15">Hilton 2009</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Canada</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<u>Nulliparous women</u>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>N=82 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<u>Multiparous women</u>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>N=44 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 29.5 and 31.5 years, respectively</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age:</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<u>Nulliparous</u>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>37 weeks (±5.0)</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<u>Multiparous</u>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>37 weeks (±4.0)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Nitroglycerin</p>
|
|
<p>IV nitroglycerin (100 micrograms/mL)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>IV saline (10mL)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref14">Hindawi 2005</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Jordan</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=192 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 28 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38 weeks (±2.0)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Ritodrine</p>
|
|
<p>Infusion of ritodrine (0.3mg/minute for 30 minutes)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref16">Hofmeyr 1983</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>South Africa</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=60 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 24.8 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37.6 weeks (±1.0)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV</p>
|
|
<p>ECV attempt initially without tocolysis.</p>
|
|
<p>If unsuccessful (7 cases), attempt repeated following hexoprenaline (10 micrograms) by slow IV injection.</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref17">Impey 2005</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>UK</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=124 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 30.7 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37.5 weeks (±0.83)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Ritodrine</p>
|
|
<p>17mL ritodrine hydrochloride (3mg/mL)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>Dextrose saline (17mL)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref18">Khaw 2015</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Hong Kong</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=189 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 32 years</p>
|
|
<p>Median maternal gestational age: 36.5 weeks (Range 36.1 to 39.6)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Bupivacaine</p>
|
|
<p>Hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% (1.8mL) + fentanyl (15 micrograms)</p>
|
|
<p>ECV + Remifentanil</p>
|
|
<p>IV remifentanil (0.1 micrograms/kg/mi nute)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV alone</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref19" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref19">Kok 2008</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>The Netherlands</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=320 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 33.85 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37 weeks (±6.1)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Nifedipine</p>
|
|
<p>Two nifedipine capsules (10mg)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>Two placebo capsules</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref20">Liu 2016</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>China</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=152 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 33.95 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Remifentanil</p>
|
|
<p>Remifentanil (01 micrograms/kg/mi nute) 3 minutes before ECV</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>Saline placebo</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref21">Mahomed 1991</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Zimbabwe</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=208 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 26.65 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38 weeks (±1.0)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Hexoprenaline</p>
|
|
<p>IV hexaprenaline (Ipradol 10 micrograms) over 1 minute</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref22">Mancuso 2000</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=108 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 28.3 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38.0 weeks (±1.1)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Lidocaine + Epinephrine + Fentanyl</p>
|
|
<p>2% lidocaine epinephrine (3 mL) infused through lumbar epidural catheters.</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV alone</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref23">Marquette 1996</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Canada</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=283 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 28.9 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37.4 weeks (±0.08)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Ritodrine</p>
|
|
<p>IV ritodrine (111 micrograms/minute)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>Placebo saline</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref24" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref24">Mohamed Ismail 2008</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Malaysia</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=86 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 29.2 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37.7 weeks (±0.6)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Nifedipine</p>
|
|
<p>Oral nifedipine (20mg)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Terbutaline</p>
|
|
<p>IV terbutaline (50 micrograms)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref25">Munoz 2014</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Spain</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=63 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 32.7 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: Not mentioned</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Remifentanil</p>
|
|
<p>100mL remifentanil (1mg) at 0.1 microgram/kg/min</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>Placebo saline (100mL)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref26">Nor Azlin 2005</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Malaysia</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=60 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 28 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: Not mentioned</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Ritodrine</p>
|
|
<p>IV ritodrine (0.4mg/mL)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>IV placebo saline</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref27" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref27">Rita 2011</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>India</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=60 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 27.2 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38 weeks (±1.4)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref28">Robertson 1987</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=58 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 23 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38.6 weeks (±0.2)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Ritodrine</p>
|
|
<p>IV ritodrine (200 micrograms/minute)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV alone</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref29">Schorr 1997</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=69 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 26 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37.7 weeks (±2.22)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Lidocaine + Epinephrine</p>
|
|
<p>2% lidocaine with epinephrine</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV alone</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref30" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref30">Smith 1999</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Australia</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=100 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 29 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 36.7 weeks (±0.6)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Postural management</p>
|
|
<p>Knee-chest position, for 15 minutes, three times a day, for one week</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV alone</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref31">Sullivan 2009</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=96 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 32.5 years</p>
|
|
<p>Median maternal gestational age: 37 weeks [IQR 37 to 38]</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Bupivacaine + Fentanyl</p>
|
|
<p>Bupivacaine (2.5mg) + fentanyl (15 micrograms)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Fentanyl</p>
|
|
<p>IV fentanyl (50 micrograms)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref33" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref33">Vallikkannu 2014</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Malaysia</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=95 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 30.3 years</p>
|
|
<p>Median maternal gestational age: 37.7 weeks [IQR 37.4 to 38.2]</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Talcum powder</p>
|
|
<p>Subcutaneous terbutaline (250 micrograms) given 5-10 minutes prior to attempting ECV.</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Gel</p>
|
|
<p>Subcutaneous terbutaline (250 micrograms) given 5-10 minutes prior to attempting ECV.</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref32">Van Dorsten 1981</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>US</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=48 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 25 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37.7 weeks (±0.2)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Terbutaline</p>
|
|
<p>Terbutaline (5 micrograms/minut e) given 10-15 minutes before ECV</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Control (no intervention)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cephalic presentation in labour</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref34">Vani 2009</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Malaysia</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=144 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 28.45 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38 weeks (±0.65)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Salbutamol</p>
|
|
<p>IV salbutamol (0.1mg)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV + Placebo</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Admission to SCBU/NICU</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref35">Wang 2017</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>China</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=144 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 32.05 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 37 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Remifentanil</p>
|
|
<p>Remifentanil (0.1 micrograms/kg/mi n) for 3 minutes</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Placebo</p>
|
|
<p>Saline placebo</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Fetal death after 36<sup>+0</sup> weeks gestation</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36" rid="niceng201er13.s1.1.ref36">Weiniger 2010</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>RCT</p>
|
|
<p>Israel</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>N=65 pregnant women</p>
|
|
<p>Maternal mean age: 28.55 years</p>
|
|
<p>Mean maternal gestational age: 38.1 weeks (±1.0)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>ECV + Bupivacaine</p>
|
|
<p>Bupivacaine (7.5mg)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">ECV alone</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Method of birth</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="tblwrap-foot"><div><dl class="temp-labeled-list small"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt></dt><dd><div><p class="no_margin">ECV: external cephalic version; IV: intravenous; NICU: neonatal intensive care unit; NSAID: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug; SCBU: special care baby unit.</p></div></dd></dl></dl></div></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng201er13appktab1"><div id="niceng201er13.appk.tab1" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 24</span><span class="title">Excluded studies</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK573937/table/niceng201er13.appk.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng201er13.appk.tab1_lrgtbl__"><table><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Study</th><th id="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Reason for exclusion</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Ahmed, R. J., Gafni, A., Hutton, E. K., Early, E. C. V.Trial Collaborative Group, The Cost Implications in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia of Early Versus Delayed External Cephalic Version in the Early External Cephalic Version 2 (EECV2) Trial, Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Canada: JOGCJ Obstet Gynaecol Can, 38, 235–245.e3, 2016 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27106193" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27106193</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Akhtar,N., Early versus late external cephalic version, Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute, 27, 164–169, 2013
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36 0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Albaladejo, M. I., Esquius, N. P., Trabado, C. R., Sabate, G. S., Marmol, R. U., Ventura, C. V., Brito, M. Z., Torres, M. D., Evaluation of the effectiveness of the moxibustion in non-cephalic presentations in pregnant women assisted in Primary Care, Matronas profesion, 18, 27–33, 2017
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">This study is not available in English.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
American College of, Obstetricians, Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice, Bulletins-Obstetrics, Practice Bulletin No. 161 Summary: External Cephalic Version, Obstetrics & GynecologyObstet Gynecol, 127, 412–3, 2016 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26942380" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26942380</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Annapoorna,V., Arulkumaran,S., Anandakumar,C., Chua,S., Montan,S., Ratnam,S.S., External cephalic version at term with tocolysis and vibroacoustic stimulation, International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 59, 13–18, 1997 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9359440" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 9359440</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Study design is a non-randomised trial.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Bolaji, I., Alabi-Isama, L., Central neuraxial blockade-assisted external cephalic version in reducing caesarean section rate: systematic review and meta-analysis, Obstetrics & Gynecology International, 2009, 718981, 2009 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC2798565/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC2798565</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20069044" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 20069044</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review for ECV anaesthesia. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Bue, L., Lauszus, F. F., Moxibustion did not have an effect in a randomised clinical trial for version of breech position, Danish Medical JournalDan Med J, 63, 2016 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26836801" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26836801</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
CardiniF, Weixin, H, Moxibustion for correction of breech presentation: a randomized controlled trial, JAMA, 280, 1580–4, 1998 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9820259" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 9820259</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Cardini, F., Lombardo, P., Regalia, A. L., Regaldo, G., Zanini, A., Negri, M. G., Panepuccia, L., Todros, T., A randomised controlled trial of moxibustion for breech presentation, BJOG, 112, 743–747, 2005 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15924530" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 15924530</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Cardini, F., Weixin, H., Moxibustion for correction of breech presentation: a randomized controlled trial, JamaJama, 280, 1580–4, 1998 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9820259" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 9820259</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Carvalho, B., Tan, J. M., MacArio, A., El-Sayed, Y. Y., Sultan, P., A cost analysis of neuraxial anesthesia to facilitate external cephalic version for breech fetal presentation, Anesthesia and Analgesia, 117, 155–159, 2013 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23592608" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23592608</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Chi, Ctr Trc, External cephalic version for breech presentation: a randomised controlled trial of anaesthetic interventions, <a href="http://Http://www.who.int/trialsearch/trial2.aspx?Trialid=chictr-trc-12002644" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Http://www<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.who.int/trialsearch/trial2<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.aspx?Trialid<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​=chictr-trc-12002644</a>, 2012
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Chung, T., Neale, E., Lau, T. K., Rogers, M., A randomized, double blind, controlled trial of tocolysis to assist external cephalic version in late pregnancy, Acta Obstet Gynecol ScandActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 75, 720–4, 1996 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8906005" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 8906005</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The study does not report any outcomes that match our protocol.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Couceiro Naveira, E., Lopez Ramon, Y.CajalC., Atosiban versus ritodrine as tocolytics in external cephalic version, Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineJ Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 1–6, 2020 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31931641" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31931641</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Study design is a non-randomised trial.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Coulon, C., Poleszczuk, M., Paty-Montaigne, M. H., Gascard, C., Gay, C., Houfflin-Debarge, V., Subtil, D., Version of breech fetuses by moxibustion with acupuncture: A randomized controlled trial, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 124, 32–39, 2014 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24901279" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 24901279</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Coyle,M.E., Smith,C.A., Peat,B., Cephalic version by moxibustion for breech presentation, Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online), 5, CD003928-, 2012 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22592693" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 22592693</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review for moxibustion. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Delisle, Marie-France, Kamani, Allaudin, Douglas, Joanne, Bebbington, Michael, 124 Antepartum external cephalic version under spinal anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 185, S115, 2001
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text article available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Do, C. K., Smith, C. A., Dahlen, H., Bisits, A., Schmied, V., Moxibustion for cephalic version: A feasibility randomised controlled trial, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 11, 81, 2011 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3192686/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3192686</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21943180" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 21943180</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Do, C., Smith, C., Dahlen, H., Bissets, A., Schmeid, V., Moxibustion for cephalic version: A feasibility study, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 47, 37, 2011
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Dochez, V., Esbelin, J., Volteau, C., Winer, N., Efficiency of nitrous oxide in external cephalic version on success rate: A randomised controlled trial, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 124 (Supplement 1), 111, 2017
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Founds, S. A., Clinical implications from an exploratory study of postural management of breech presentation, Journal of midwifery & women’s health, 51, 292–296, 2006 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3628770/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3628770</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16814225" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 16814225</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Garcia-Mochon, L., Martin, J. J., Aranda-Regules, J. M., Rivas-Ruiz, F., Vas, J., Cost effectiveness of using moxibustion to correct non-vertex presentation, Acupuncture in Medicine, 33, 136–41, 2015 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25669428" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 25669428</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Guittier,M.J., Klein,T.J., Dong,H., Andreoli,N., Irion,O., Boulvain,M., Side-effects of moxibustion for cephalic version of breech presentation, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 14, 1231–1233, 2008 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19040374" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19040374</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">This article reports on an unfinished trial.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Guittier,M.J., Pichon,M., Dong,H., Irion,O., Boulvain,M., Moxibustion for breech version: a randomized controlled trial, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114, 1034–1040, 2009 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20168104" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 20168104</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hofmeyr, G. J., Kulier, R., Cephalic version by postural management for breech presentation, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, CD000051, 2012 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7052740/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7052740</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23076882" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23076882</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Cochrane review on postural management. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hofmeyr, G. J., Kulier, R., West, H. M., External cephalic version for breech presentation at term, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016, CD000083, 2015 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6505738/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6505738</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25828903" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 25828903</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Cochrane review on ECV. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hofmeyr, GJ, External cephalic version facilitation for breech presentation at term, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, 2001 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11687071" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 11687071</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Relevant references extracted and added to review.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hofmeyr, GJ, External cephalic version for breech presentation before term, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, 2001 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10796123" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 10796123</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Relevant references extracted and included in review.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hofmeyr, GJ, Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, 2002 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12076384" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 12076384</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Relevant references extracted and included in review.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hofmeyr, GJ, Kulier, R, Cephalic version by postural management for breech presentation, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, 2003 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10796105" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 10796105</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Relevant references extracted and included in review.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hunter, S., Hofmeyr, G. J., Kulier, R., Hands and knees posture in late pregnancy or labour for fetal malposition (lateral or posterior), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD001063, 2007 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8407052/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8407052</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17943750" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 17943750</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Cochrane review for postural management. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hutton, E. K., Hannah, M. E., Ross, S. J., Delisle, M. F., Carson, G. D., Windrim, R., Ohlsson, A., Willan, A. R., Gafni, A., Sylvestre, G., Natale, R., Barrett, Y., Pollard, J. K., Dunn, M. S., Turtle, P., Early, E. C. V.Trial Collaborative Group, The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologyBjog, 118, 564–77, 2011 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3085121/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3085121</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21291506" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 21291506</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hutton, E. K., Hannah, M. E., Ross, S. J., Delisle, M. F., Carson, G. D., Windrim, R., Ohlsson, A., Willan, A. R., Gafni, A., Sylvestre, G., Natale, R., Barrett, Y., Pollard, J. K., Dunn, M. S., Turtle, P., The early external cephalic version 2 trial: An international multicenter randomized controlled trial of timing of external cephalic version for breech pregnancies, Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 66, 469–470, 2011
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hutton, E. K., Hofmeyr, G. J., Dowswell, T., External cephalic version for breech presentation before term, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC9188447/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC9188447</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26222245" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26222245</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Cochrane review on ECV. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Johnson,R.L., Elliott,J.P., Fetal acoustic stimulation, an adjunct to external cephalic version: a blinded, randomized crossover study, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 173, 1369–1372, 1995 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7503169" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 7503169</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">This study does not focus on breech presentation and instead focuses on fetal mid-line spine position.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Jorge, V., Manuel, A. R. J., Manuela, M., Mercedes, B., Nicolas, B. P., Francisco, R. R., Moxibustion applied at home for non-vertex presentation: A multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial, European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 4, 47, 2012
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Jprn, Umin, Utility of acupuncture and moxibustion for repositioning breech presentation. -Randomized Controlled Trial, <a href="http://Http://www.who.int/trialsearch/trial2.aspx?Trialid=jprn-umin000011757" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Http://www<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.who.int/trialsearch/trial2<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.aspx?Trialid<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​=jprn-umin000011757</a>, 2013
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Kim, S. Y., Chae, Y., Lee, S. M., Lee, H., Park, H. J., The effectiveness of moxibustion: an overview during 10 years, Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine: eCAMEvid Based Complement Alternat Med, 2011, 306515, 2011 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3136359/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3136359</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19825873" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19825873</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review on moxibustion. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Langer, B. P., Roth, G. E., Aissi, G., Meyer, N., Bigler, A., Bouschbacher, J. M., Hemlinger, C., Viville, B., Guilpain, M., Gaudineau, A., Akladios, C., Nisand, I., Vayssiere, C., Favre, R., Sananes, N., Acupuncture version of breech presentation: A randomized placebo-controlled single-blinded trial, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 214, S65, 2016
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lee, M. S., Are acupuncture-type interventions beneficial for correcting breech presentation?, Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 16, 238–9, 2008 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18638715" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18638715</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The study does not use RCT study design.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lee, M. S., Kang, J. W., Ernst, E., Does moxibustion work? An overview of systematic reviews, BMC Research NotesBMC Res Notes, 3, 284, 2010 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC2987875/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC2987875</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21054851" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 21054851</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review on moxibustion. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Li, Q, Clinical observation on correcting malposition of fetus by electro-acupuncture, Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 16, 260–2, 1996 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9389098" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 9389098</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Li, Q., Wang, L., Clinical observation on correcting malposition of fetus by electro-acupuncture, J Tradit Chin MedJournal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan, 16, 260–2, 1996 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9389098" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 9389098</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Included in CG62 but is not a RCT-observational study of women with malpresentation at 28 gestational weeks and more.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Li, X., Hu, J., Wang, X., Zhang, H., Liu, J., Moxibustion and other acupuncture point stimulation methods to treat breech presentation: A systematic review of clinical trials, Chinese Medicine, 4 (no pagination), 2009 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC2663768/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC2663768</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19245719" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19245719</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review on moxibustion. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Liu, M. L., Lan, L., Tang, Y., Liang, F. R., Acupuncture and moxibustion for breech presentation: a systematic review, Chinese journal of evidence-based medicine, 9, 840–843, 2009
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">This study is not available in English.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Magro-Malosso, E. R., Saccone, G., Di Tommaso, M., Mele, M., Berghella, V., Neuraxial analgesia to increase the success rate of external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 215, 276–86, 2016 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27131581" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27131581</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review for ECV anaesthesia. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Massalha, M., Garmi, G., Zafran, N., Carmeli, J., Gimburg, G., Salim, R., Clinical outcomes after external cephalic version with spinal anesthesia after failure of a first attempt without anesthesia, International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 139, 324–328, 2017 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28842977" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28842977</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The study does not use RCT study design.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Millereau, M., Branger, B., Darcel, F., Fetal version by acupuncture (moxibustion) versus control group, Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, 38, 481–487, 2009 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19500919" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19500919</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Study is not written in English.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Morris, S., Geraghty, S., Sundin, D., Moxibustion: An alternative option for breech presentation, British Journal of Midwifery, 26, 440–445, 2018
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The study does not use RCT study design.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Muslim, I., Tan, I., Rodriguez, P., Tan, T. L., Cost effectiveness of external cephalic version, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 119, 121, 2012
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Neri, I., De Pace, V., Venturini, P., Facchinetti, F., Effects of three different stimulations (acupuncture, moxibustion, acupuncture plus moxibustion) of BL.67 acupoint at small toe on fetal behavior of breech presentation, American Journal of Chinese Medicine, 35, 27–33, 2007 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17265548" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 17265548</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Nor AzlinMI, MaryasalwatiI, NorzilalwatiMN, ZalehaAM, MohammadAJ, ZainulRMR, Nifedipine versusterbutaline for tocolysis in external cephalic version, International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 102, 263–266, 2008 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18554601" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18554601</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Nor Azlin,, M. I., Ibrahim, M., Mohd Naim, N., Mahdy, Z. A., Jamil, M. A., Mohd Razi, Z. R., Nifedipine versus terbutaline for tocolysis in external cephalic version, Int J Gynaecol ObstetInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 102, 263–6, 2008 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18554601" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18554601</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
O’Brien, J. A., Adashi, E. Y., Coming out ahead: the cost effectiveness of external cephalic version using spinal anesthesia, Israel Journal of Health Policy ResearchIsr J Health Policy Res, 3, 6, 2014 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3936830/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3936830</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24565024" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 24565024</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Paraiso Torras, B., Rodriguez Martin, N., Lazaro Carrasco Delgado, C., Jimenez Fournier, M. C., Canete Palomo, M. L., Economic impact of the introduction of the cephalic external version in a tertiary Hospital, Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 43, 2015
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Predanic,M., External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 111, 776–777, 2008 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18310385" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18310385</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The study does not use RCT study design.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Preston, R., Jee, R., Anesthesia-facilitated external cephalic version: pennywise or pound-foolish?, Canadian Journal of AnaesthesiaCan J Anaesth, 60, 6–13, 2013 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23224669" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23224669</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review for ECV anaesthesia. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Reinhard, J., Peiffer, S., Reichenbach, L., Tottel, E., Reitter, A., Sinanovic, B., Yuan, J., Louwen, F., The effects of clinical hypnosis versus Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) before External Cephalic Version (ECV)-A prospective off-centre randomised double blind controlled trial, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 1), S213–S214, 2012 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3388481/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3388481</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22778774" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 22778774</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Reinhard, J., Peiffer, S., Sanger, N., Herrmann, E., Yuan, J., Louwen, F., The Effects of Clinical Hypnosis versus Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) before External Cephalic Version (ECV): A Prospective Off-Centre Randomised, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial, Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine: eCAMEvid Based Complement Alternat Med, 2012, 626740, 2012 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3388481/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3388481</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22778774" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 22778774</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Rosim, R. P., Carmo, E. V., Cost-effectiveness of breech version by moxibustion associated with acupuncture for women at 33 weeks gestation: A modeling approach by the brazilian public health care system perspective, Value in Health, 20, A924, 2017
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Rosman, Ageeth, Vlemmix, Floortje, Fleuren, Margot, Rijnders, Marlies, Beuckens, Antje, Opmeer, Brent, Hardeman, Rob, Kok, Olga, Mol, Ben Willem, Kok, Marjolein, Implementation of external cephalic version: A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial, Women & Birth, 26, S16–S16, 2013
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sananes, N., Roth, G. E., Aissi, G. A., Meyer, N., Bigler, A., Bouschbacher, J. M., Helmlinger, C., Viville, B., Guilpain, M., Gaudineau, A., Akladios, C. Y., Nisand, I., Langer, B., Vayssiere, C., Favre, R., Acupuncture version of breech presentation: a randomized sham-controlled single-blinded trial, European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, & Reproductive BiologyEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 204, 24–30, 2016 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27521594" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27521594</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sloos, J. H., [The value of external version in at-term breech presentation], Ned Tijdschr GeneeskdNederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde, 135, 241–2, 1991 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2005990" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 2005990</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Not available in English.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Smith, C. A., Cochrane, S., Does acupuncture have a place as an adjunct treatment during pregnancy? A review of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, Birth, 36, 246–253, 2009 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19747272" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19747272</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review on acupuncture. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sonia, B., Alessandro, B., Sylvie, B., Enrica, B., Filippa, T., Antonella, T., Federica, S., Catia, V., Valeria, M. M., Breech presentation of the foetus and traditional Chinese medicine, European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 4, 56, 2012
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Stock, A., Chung, T., Rogers, M., Ming, W. W., Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled comparison of ritodrine and hexoprenaline for tocolysis prior to external cephalic version at term, Aust N Z J Obstet GynaecolThe Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology, 33, 265–8, 1993 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8304889" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 8304889</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The study does not report any outcomes that match our protocol.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sullivan, J. T., Scavone, B. M., Patel, R., Robles, C., McCarthy, R. J., Wong, C. A., A randomized controlled trial of the impact of combined spinal-epidural analgesia on the success of external cephalic version for breech presentation, Anesthesiology, 104, 10, 2006 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19682886" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19682886</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sultan, P., Carvalho, B., Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: a systematic review, International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 20, 299–306, 2011 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21925869" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 21925869</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review for ECV anaesthesia. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Tan,J.M., Macario,A., Carvalho,B., Druzin,M.L., El-Sayed,Y.Y., Cost-effectiveness of external cephalic version for term breech presentation, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 10, 3-, 2010 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC2826287/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC2826287</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20092630" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 20092630</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
van den Berg, I., Bosch, J. L., Jacobs, B., Bouman, I., Duvekot, J. J., Hunink, M. G., Effectiveness of acupuncture-type interventions versus expectant management to correct breech presentation: a systematic review, Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 16, 92–100, 2008 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18514911" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18514911</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review on acupuncture. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
van den Berg, I., Kaandorp, G. C., Bosch, J. L., Duvekot, J. J., Arends, L. R., Hunink, M. G., Cost-effectiveness of breech version by acupuncture-type interventions on BL 67, including moxibustion, for women with a breech foetus at 33 weeks gestation: a modelling approach, Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 18, 67–77, 2010 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20430289" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 20430289</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
van den Berg, I., Kaandorp, G., Bosch, J. L., Duvekot, J. J., Hunink, M. G. M., The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Breech Version Acumoxa compared to standard care to correct breech presentation…13th Annual Symposium on Complementary Health Care, 12th-14th December, 2006, University of Exeter, UK, Focus on Alternative & Complementary Therapies, 11, 5–5, 2006
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
van Loon, AJ, Mantingh, A, Serlier, EK, Kroon, G, Mooyaart, EL, Huisjes, HJ, Randomised controlled trial of magnetic-resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term, Lancet, 350, 1799–804, 1997 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9428250" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 9428250</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">This study does not focus on interventions for breech management but rather on breech identification.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Vas, J., Aranda-Regules, J. M., Modesto, M., Ramos-Monserrat, M., Baron, M., Aguilar, I., Benitez-Parejo, N., Ramirez-Carmona, C., Rivas-Ruiz, F., Using moxibustion in primary healthcare to correct non-vertex presentation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial, Acupuncture in Medicine, 31, 31–8, 2013 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23249535" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23249535</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population did not include women with a longitudinal lie fetal malpresentation (breech presentation) confirmed by ultrasound scan at ≥36+0 weeks.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Vas, J., Aranda-Regules, J. M., Modesto, M., Ramos-Monserrat, M., Baron, M., Aguilar, I., Benitez-Parejo, N., Ramirez-Carmona, C., Rivas-Ruiz, F., Using moxibustion in primary healthcare to correct non-vertex presentation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial, Revista Internacional de Acupuntura, 8, 41–49, 2014
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Vas, J., Aranda-Regules, J. M., Modesto, M., Ramos-Monserrat, M., Barón, M., Aguilar, I., Benítez-Parejo, N., Ramírez-Carmona, C., Rivas-Ruiz, F., Using moxibustion in primary healthcare to correct non-vertex presentation: a multicentre randomised controlled trial, Acupuncture in Medicine, 31, 31–38, 2013 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23249535" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23249535</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Vas,J., Aranda,J.M., Nishishinya,B., Mendez,C., Martin,M.A., Pons,J., Liu,J.P., Wang,C.Y., Perea-Milla,E., Correction of nonvertex presentation with moxibustion: a systematic review and metaanalysis, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, #201, 241–259, 2009 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19733275" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19733275</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review on moxibustion. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Velzel, J., Vlemmix, F., Opmeer, B. C., Mol, B. W., Kok, M., Atosiban versus fenoterol as a uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: A randomized controlled trial, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 51, 53, 2015 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5421458/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5421458</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28126898" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28126898</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Velzel, J., Vlemmix, F., Opmeer, B. C., Molkenboer, J. F., Verhoeven, C. J., van Pampus, M. G., Papatsonis, D. N., Bais, J. M., Vollebregt, K. C., van der Esch, L., Van der Post, J. A., Mol, B. W., Kok, M., Atosiban versus fenoterol as a uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, 356, i6773, 2017 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5421458/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5421458</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28126898" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28126898</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Vlemmix, F., Rosman, A., Fleuren, M., Rijnders, M., Beuckens, A., Opmeer, B., Hardeman, R., Dirken, J., De Vaan, M., Kok, O., Bazairi, M., Cikot, R., Renes, C., Mol, B., Kok, M., Implementation of external cephalic version; A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 208, S320, 2013
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">No full text available.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Weiniger, C. F., Ginosaur, Y., Elchalal, U., Einav, S., Nucrietin, M., Guage, P., Ezra, Y., Prospective randomised study of external cephalic version for breech presentation at term in nulliparous women: spinal analgesia versus no analgesia, International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia, 16, S21, 2007
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Weiniger,C.F., Ginosar,Y., Elchalal,U., Sharon,E., Nokrian,M., Ezra,Y., External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110, 1343–1350, 2007 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18055730" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18055730</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The study does not report any outcomes that match our protocol.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Weomoger, C. F., Ginosar, Y., Elchalal, U., Sharon, E., Nokrian, M., Ezra, Y., External cephalix version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial, Obstetrics & GynecologyObstet Gynecol, 110, 1343–1350, 2007 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18055730" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 18055730</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Wilcox, C. B., Nassar, N., Roberts, C. L., Effectiveness of nifedipine tocolysis to facilitate external cephalic version: A systematic review, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 118, 423–428, 2011 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21199292" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 21199292</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review on ECV pharmaceutical component. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Y. K.Yang, M.Mao, Y. P.Huet al, Effect of moxibustion at zhiyin (BL67) to correct the fetus malposition: multi-center randomized controlled clinical study, Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 48, 1097–1110, 2007
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Not available in English.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Yamasato, K., Kaneshiro, B., Salcedo, J., Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: Cost analysis, Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Research, 41, 1023–31, 2015 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5637526/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5637526</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25771920" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 25771920</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">HE analysis.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
YangYK, MaoM, HuYP, et al., Effect of moxibustion at zhiyin (BL67) to correct the fetus malposition: multi-center randomized controlled clinical study, Journal of traditional Chinese medicine, 48, 1097–1110, 2007
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Duplicate.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Yang, F., Comparison of knee-chest plus moxibustion on Zhiyin with knee-chest position for breech position, Journal of sichuan traditional chinese medicine, 24, 106–107, 2006
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Not written in English.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Zhang,Q.H., Yue,J.H., Liu,M., Sun,Z.R., Sun,Q., Han,C., Wang,D., Moxibustion for the correction of nonvertex presentation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013, 2013. Article Number, -, 2013 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3789399/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3789399</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24159341" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 24159341</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng201er13.appk.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic review on moxibustion. Relevant references examined and included if appropriate.</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></article></div><div id="jr-scripts"><script src="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/js/libs.min.js"> </script><script src="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/js/jr.min.js"> </script></div></div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Book content -->
|
|
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="/portal/portal3rc.fcgi/rlib/js/InstrumentNCBIBaseJS/InstrumentPageStarterJS.js"> </script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- CE8B5AF87C7FFCB1_0191SID /projects/books/PBooks@9.11 portal107 v4.1.r689238 Tue, Oct 22 2024 16:10:51 -->
|
|
<span id="portal-csrf-token" style="display:none" data-token="CE8B5AF87C7FFCB1_0191SID"></span>
|
|
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="//static.pubmed.gov/portal/portal3rc.fcgi/4216699/js/3968615.js" snapshot="books"></script></body>
|
|
</html>
|