Prognostic accuracy of ultrasound measures of fetal head descent to predict outcome of operative vaginal birth: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the prognostic accuracy of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measures of fetal descent before operative vaginal birth in predicting complicated or failed procedures. DATA SOURCES: We performed a predefined systematic search in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus from inception to June 10, 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies assessing the following intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measures before operative vaginal birth to predict procedure outcome: angle of progression, head direction, head-perineum distance, head-symphysis distance, midline angle, and/or progression distance. METHODS: Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Bivariate meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivities and specificities into summary receiver operating characteristic curves for each intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measure. Subgroup analyses were performed for measures taken at rest vs with pushing and prediction of failed vs complicated operative vaginal birth. RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies involving 2848 women undergoing attempted operative vaginal birth were included. The prognostic accuracy of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measures taken at rest to predict failed or complicated operative vaginal birth was high for angle of progression (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.891; 9 studies) and progression distance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.901; 3 studies), moderate for head direction (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.791; 6 studies) and head-perineum distance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.747; 8 studies), and fair for midline angle (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.642; 4 studies). There was no study with sufficient data to assess head-symphysis distance. Subgroup analysis showed that measures taken with pushing tended to have a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for angle of progression (0.927; 4 studies), progression distance (0.930; 2 studies), and midline angle (0.903; 3 studies), with a similar area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for head direction (0.802; 4 studies). The prediction of failed vs complicated operative vaginal birth tended to be less accurate for angle of progression (0.837 [4 studies] vs 0.907 [6 studies]) and head direction (0.745 [3 studies] vs 0.810 [5 studies]), predominantly because of lower specificity, and was more accurate for head-perineum distance (0.812 [6 studies] vs 0.687 [2 studies]). CONCLUSION: Angle of progression, progression distance, and midline angle measured with pushing demonstrated the highest prognostic accuracy in predicting complicated or failed operative vaginal birth. Overall, the measurements seem to perform better with pushing than at rest.

Should we use composite outcomes in obstetric clinical prediction models?

Clinical prediction models assist clinicians to estimate the natural course of a condition, and thus facilitate treatment decisions. The development of prediction models is increasingly common in obstetric research. Composite outcomes, whereby multiple outcomes are combined into a single endpoint, are frequently used in obstetric prediction models to increase statistical power when predicting rare events. Although existing literature has reviewed the positives and negatives of using composite outcomes in clinical trials, there has been minimal commentary on the implications of their use in the development and reporting of prognostic models. In this article, we review these issues, in particular, highlighting how unequal individual relationships between predictors and individual component outcomes can result in misleading conclusions, which may result in the omission of important but rare predictors or inappropriately inform clinical decisions to implement an intervention. We propose careful use, or where possible avoidance, of composite outcomes in the development of prognostic models in obstetrics. Methodological standards for developing prognostic models should be updated to standardise and appraise composite outcomes when their use is necessary. We also support previous recommendations to report on the accuracy of key components and inconsistencies among predictor variables.