Validation of the prediction model for success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in Japanese women

To validate a previously developed prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) using a Japanese cohort. We performed a cohort study of all term pregnant women with a vertex position, singleton gestation, and one prior low transverse cesarean delivery attempting a trial of labor between...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of medical sciences 2012-01, Vol.9 (6), p.488-491
Hauptverfasser: Yokoi, Akira, Ishikawa, Kaoru, Miyazaki, Ken, Yoshida, Kana, Furuhashi, Madoka, Tamakoshi, Koji
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To validate a previously developed prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) using a Japanese cohort. We performed a cohort study of all term pregnant women with a vertex position, singleton gestation, and one prior low transverse cesarean delivery attempting a trial of labor between April 1985 and March 2010. Variables necessary for the prediction of successful VBAC were maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index, ethnicity, prior vaginal delivery, prior VBAC, and indication for prior cesarean delivery. They were extracted from medical records and put into the formula that calculates an individual woman's predicted VBAC success rate. The predicted rates were then partitioned into deciles and compared with the actual VBAC rates. The predictive ability of the model was assessed with a receiver operating characteristic and the area under the curve (AUC) was determined. Seven hundred and twenty-five women who met the inclusion criteria had complete data available, of which 664 (91.6%) had VBAC. The predicted probability of VBAC, as calculated by the regression equation, was significantly higher in those who had a successful trial of labor (median 80.1%, interquartile range 71.5-88.7) than those who did not (median 69.4%, interquartile range 59.9-78.9, P
ISSN:1449-1907
1449-1907
DOI:10.7150/ijms.4682