Management of Breech Presentation: A Comparison of Four National Evidence-Based Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The management of breech presentation may improve perinatal outcomes. The aim of this study was to synthesize and compare published evidence of four national guidelines on breech presentation. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive review of four recently published national guidelines on breech presentation and external cephalic version (ECV) was conducted: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline on "External Cephalic Version and Reducing the Incidence of Term Breech Presentation" and "Management of Breech Presentation", American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guideline on "External Cephalic Version" and "Mode of Term Singleton Breech Delivery," Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada guideline on "Vaginal Delivery of Breech Presentation" and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline on "Management of breech presentation at term." RESULTS: Regarding ECV, there is no recommendation by the SOGC, whereas all other national guidelines recommend this technique. Regarding breech vaginal delivery, there are limited recommendations by the ACOG, whereas all other guidelines provide similar recommendations. The RANZCOG makes no special recommendations on the intrapartum period. CONCLUSION: The differences among national guidelines point out the need for the adoption of an international consensus on the management of breech presentation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".