Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 26, 2025
External Cephalic Version: Is it an Effective and Safe Procedure?
Published on: June 6, 2020
Predictive Models for Estimating the Probability of Successful Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: A Systematic
Naomi Black1, Ian Henderson, Bassel H Al Wattar
1Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, and the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, and the Reproductive Medicine Unit, University College London Hospitals, London, United Kingdom.
Objective:
To systematically review all studies that developed or validated a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) prediction model.
Data Sources:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until February 2022.
Methods Of Study Selection:
We included observational studies that developed or validated a multivariable VBAC prediction model in women with a singleton pregnancy and one previous lower segment cesarean delivery. A total of 3,758 articles were identified and screened.
Tabulation, Integration, And Results:
For 57 included studies, data were extracted in duplicate using a CHARMS (Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Review of Prediction Modelling Studies) checklist-based tool and included participants' characteristics, sample size, predictors, timing of application, and performance. PROBAST (Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) were used to assess risk of bias and transparency of reporting. Several studies developed or validated more than one model. There were 38 unique prediction models, 42 external validations of 10 existing prediction models, and six modifications of existing models. Of the 38 unique models, only 19 (19/38, 50%) were internally validated in the initial study. No studies externally validated their model in the initial study. Age, previous vaginal birth, and previous cesarean delivery for labor dystocia were the commonest predictors. The area under the curve in included studies ranged from 0.61 to 0.95. Models used close to delivery generally outperformed those used earlier in pregnancy. Most studies demonstrated a high risk of bias (45/57, 79%), the remainder were unclear (7/57, 12%) and low (5/57, 9%). Median TRIPOD checklist adherence was 70% (range 32-93%).
Conclusion:
Several prediction models for VBAC success exist, but many lack external validation and are at high risk of bias. Models used close to delivery outperformed those used earlier in pregnancy; however, their generalizability and applicability remain unclear. High-quality external validation and effect studies are required to guide clinical use.
Systematic Review Registration:
PROSPERO, CRD42020190930.
Related Concept Videos
01:13Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predicted Value
Sensitivity is the...
01:49Probability Laws
01:17z Scores and Area Under the Curve
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
01:03Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...