Skip to main content
. 2015 Feb 12;2015(2):CD000184. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000184.pub4

Summary of findings 2. Regional analgesia (with tocolysis) versus no intervention of regional analgesia (with or without tocolysis) for breech presentation.

Regional analgesia (with tocolysis) versus no intervention of regional analgesia (with or without tocolysis) for breech presentation
Patient or population: patients with breech presentation
 Settings: studies in hospital settings
 Intervention: regional analgesia (with tocolysis) versus no intervention of regional analgesia (with or without tocolysis)
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Relative effect
 (95% CI) Number of participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Control Regional analgesia (with tocolysis) vs no intervention of regional analgesia (with or without tocolysis)
Cephalic presentation at birth (primary) Study population RR 1.63 
 (0.75 to 3.53) 279
 (3 studies) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 Very low1,2,3  
393 per 1000 640 per 1000 
 (295 to 1000)
Moderate
352 per 1000 574 per 1000 
 (264 to 1000)
Cephalic vaginal birth not achieved (CS + breech vaginal birth) (primary) Study population RR 0.65 
 (0.47 to 0.89) 108
 (1 study) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low4,5  
741 per 1000 481 per 1000 
 (348 to 659)
Moderate
741 per 1000 482 per 1000 
 (348 to 659)
Caesarean section (primary) Study population RR 0.74 
 (0.4 to 1.37) 279
 (3 studies) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 Very low1,2,3  
650 per 1000 481 per 1000 
 (260 to 891)
Moderate
685 per 1000 507 per 1000 
 (274 to 938)
Fetal bradycardia (primary) Study population RR 1.48 
 (0.62 to 3.57) 210
 (2 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 Low1,3  
85 per 1000 126 per 1000 
 (53 to 303)
Moderate
86 per 1000 127 per 1000 
 (53 to 307)
Failed external cephalic version Study population RR 0.61 
 (0.43 to 0.86) 409
 (5 studies) ⊕⊕⊕⊝
 Moderate1  
585 per 1000 357 per 1000 
 (251 to 503)
Moderate
577 per 1000 352 per 1000 
 (248 to 496)
Perinatal morbidity See comment See comment Not estimable 0
 (0) See comment No data reported
Perinatal mortality See comment See comment Not estimable 0
 (0) See comment No data reported
*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1. All studies contributing data had design limitations.
 2. I2 > 60%; direction and size of effect inconsistent.
 3. Wide 95% CI crossing the line of no effect and small sample size.
 4. Study contributing data had design limitations.
 5. Estimate based on small sample size.