Dugoff 1999.

Methods	RCT.
Participants	Inclusion criteria: breech presentation, 36 weeks or more, reactive CTG, intact membranes, minimum 2 × 2 cm pocket of amniotic fluid. N = 102 in the main paper (in abstract, reported as 101 women). Exclusion criteria: gross fetal anomaly, uterine malformation, EFW > 4000 g, fetal growth restriction, placenta praevia, third‐trimester vaginal bleeding, labour, contraindications to spinal analgesia or terbutaline.
Interventions	Intervention:regional analgesia (C) + tocolytic. Spinal analgesia with 10 mcg sufentanil and 1 mL 0.25% bupivacaine and 500 mL lactated Ringer's prehydration. N = 50 (49 in abstract; we will use detail from the detailed publication) Comparison:standard care + tocolytic. N = 52. ECV with terbutaline 0.25 mg was attempted usually by 2 operators, and was stopped for fetal bradycardia, maternal discomfort. Up to 4 attempts were allowed. Vaginal elevation of the presenting part not used.
Outcomes	Successful ECV; breech delivery; CS.
Notes	University of Colorado Health Sciences Centre and Denver Health Medical Centre, USA. October 1993 to August 1997.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomised, computer‐generated sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation by cards in sealed envelopes. Cards designating "spinal" or "no spinal" were placed in sealed opaque envelopes that were opened after women signed informed consent forms.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Likely that the women and the clinician were not blinded to whether or not women received an epidural.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No mention of whether investigators were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Spontaneous version occurred before ECV in 4 women in the spinal group (after the spinal was given) and in 1 woman in the no spinal group. These women were included in the intention‐to‐treat analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	We did not assess the trial protocol.
Other bias	Low risk	No differences in baseline characteristics were noted.