Dear Sir, The article which the letter comments on is a short version (1) of an extensive health technology assessment (HTA) report (2), including a systematic literature review and appraisal of the method. In this report, the appraisal includes information on Norwegian practice and the letter concerns this presentation. We also feel obligated to put forward Bergsjø's editorial (3) where he comments on our evaluation of the Stavanger study as: ‘The report from a third obstetric department, advocating more liberal use of caesarean section, was dismissed on the grounds that that particular department has a conservative practice, with only 35% of term breech births delivered abdominally.’ The study by Belfrage and Gjessing from Stavanger (4), Norway, was published after the review team had made their updated literature search on 13 August 2001. If Belfrage, Gjessing, and also Bergsjø believe that the Stavanger study was ‘…dismissed on the ground that our department had a conservative practice which made our results irrelevant.’, this is certainly not the case. The study was not included in the evidence base for formal and methodological reasons. In order to include the Stavanger study in the evidence base, the review team would have to do a formal updated literature search to comply with the methodological way a HTA report is made in order to make sure other relevant literature published in this period was not missed. The results from the Stavanger study have been presented and taken into account in the appraisal of Norwegian practice both in the full report and in our article. The choice on what to report from their study has been ours, and of course the authors may disagree in what we have presented. We can, however, not see that we through our presentation have described their results as ‘irrelevant’. There was only one published study that was relevant for the report at the start of the project. To make an adequate external validation of the Term Breech Trial to Norwegian practice, data were acquired from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway and from two regional hospitals. The review team was fully aware of the limitations of retrospective data assembled from these two hospitals and that those results did not represent all Norwegian maternity wards. However, we wished for more Norwegian data for the external validation of the Term Breech Trial, and this strategy was feasible within our time limit. The results from Stavanger were definitely relevant and were presented with the other Norwegian data. The study gave valuable information on the variations in results that can be observed between maternity wards. These four studies therefore gave results related to morbidity and mortality of some but not of all Norwegian breech births and some variations was anticipated. We are sorry if Belfrage, Gjessing, and Bergsjø feel the Stavanger study has been ‘dismissed’, as it is always the intention for review teams working on HTA reports to make extensive literature searches and report the findings in a transparent manner. The review team and the Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment believe the authors have made an important contribution in bringing forward more Norwegian data on term breech deliveries.
Read full abstract