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

International Journal of Medical Sciences

Volumn 9, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 488-491

  Yokoi, Akira ^a   Ishikawa, Kaoru ^a   Miyazaki, Ken ^a   Yoshida, Kana ^a   Furuhashi, Madoka ^a   Tamakoshi, Koji ^b  

^a JAPANESE RED CROSS NAGOYA FIRST HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^b NAGOYA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Japanese; Prediction model; Trial of labor after cesarean; Vaginal birth after cesarean; Validation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; JAPANESE; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREGNANT WOMAN; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TREATMENT INDICATION; TRIAL OF LABOR; TRIAL OF LABOR AFTER CESAREAN; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN PREDICTION MODEL; VAGINAL DELIVERY; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; ASIAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PREGNANCY; TRIAL OF LABOR; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 84866053268     PISSN: 14491907     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7150/ijms.4682     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Mathews TJ, Osterman MJK. Births: final data for 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2010; 59: 1-72.
2. Niino Y. The increasing cesarean rate globally and what we can do about it. Biosci Trends 2011; 5: 139-150.
3. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Glümezoglu AM et al. Method of deliv-ery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on ma-ternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet 2010; 375: 490-499.
4. [No authors listed]. Report of perinatal committee. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Jpn 2011; 63: 1318-1335.
5. Andrews D, Humphries G. After a caesarean What's a birth profession-als to do? J Perinat Educ 2010; 19: 11-15.
6. Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal mormidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205: S2-10.
7. Gurol-Urganci L, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC et al. Risk of placenta previa in second birth after first birth cesarean section: a popula-tion-based study and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011; 11: 95.
8. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights March 8-10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 1279-1295.
9. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 450-463.
10. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB et al. Development of a Nomogram for Prediction of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 806-812.
11. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143: 29-36.
12. Constantine MM, Fox K, Byers BD et al. Validation of the prediction model for success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gyne-col 2009; 114: 1029-1033.
13. Mamun AA, Callaway LK, O'Callaghan MJ et al. Associations of ma-ternal pre-pregnancy obesity and excess pregnancy weight gains with adverse pregnancy outcomes and length of hospital stay. BMC Preg-nancy Childbirth 2011; 11: 62.
14. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB et al. The change in the rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2011; 25: 37-43.
15. Wen SW, Rusen ID, Walker M et al. Comparison of maternal mortality and morbidity between trial of labor and elective cesarean section among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191: 1263-1269.
16. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 689-695.
17. Sieck CC. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: a comparison of rural and metropolitan rates in Oklahoma. J Okla State Med Assoc 1997; 90: 444-449.
18. Lyerly AD, Little MO. Toward an ethically responsible approach to vaginal birth after cerasean. Semin Perinatol 2010; 34: 337-344.