3.8 Article

Validation of a Prediction Model for Vaginal Birth After Caesarean

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)31015-X

关键词

Vaginal birth after Caesarean; prediction; model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Pregnant women with a previous Caesarean section face making the decision to undergo an elective repeat Caesarean section or to attempt a trial of labour with the goal of achieving a vaginal birth after Caesarean (VBAC). One of the key factors in counselling these women is the probability of a successful VBAC. We aimed to validate a prediction model for VBAC success. Methods: We performed an analysis of women at term with one prior low-transverse Caesarean section and a live cephalic singleton pregnancy who attempted a trial of labour after Caesarean (TOLAC) at 32 hospitals in Quebec between 2008 and 2012. The individual TOLAC probabilities of success were calculated without regard to ethnicity, using a prediction model previously developed in the United States. The predictive ability of the model was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve (AUC). In addition, a calibration curve was generated by plotting the predicted and observed VBAC rates. Results: Of 3113 eligible women who underwent TOLAC, we found an overall rate of VBAC of 75.3%. Beyond a predicted probability of 40%, both observed and predicted TOLAC success rates were similar. The accuracy of the model was high (AUC = 0.72; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.74, P < 0.001) as was the correlation between observed and predicted probabilities of TOLAC success (R-2 = 0.98). Finally, for women requiring induction of labour, observed and predicted probabilities were similar for a predicted probability >= 70%. Conclusion: It is possible to estimate VBAC success accurately in Quebec using a validated prediction model from the United States. This model may be used in practice without regard to ethnicity as a primary method to refine counselling during antepartum visits for women with a prior Caesarean section.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据