Obstetric Outcomes Across Second to Fourth Labors: Are Low Multiparas Truly Low Risk?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The association between parity and adverse outcomes has been a concern for decades; however, attention to the subgroups of low multiparity has not been adequately studied. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to examine the differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes among low-level multiparity subgroups, specifically women in their second, third, and fourth labors, who delivered between January 2012 and December 2016. Pregnancy outcomes were compared based on parity (second, third, and fourth labor). Results: A total of 1584 women were evaluated, of which 904 (57%) were in their second labor, 499 (31.5%) were in their third labor, and 181 (11.5%) were in their fourth labor. Women undergoing their second labor were younger than those in their third or fourth labors (29.6 vs. 32.3 or 32.7 years, respectively; p < 0.0001). Moreover, epidural analgesia was more common among women in their second labor compared to women in their third or fourth labor (70.0% vs. 59.5% or 52%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Women in their second labor were more likely to have a longer labor, compared to women in their third or fourth labor (8.50 vs. 7.46 and 6.24 hours, respectively; p < 0.05), and to have a higher rate of cesarean delivery (CD) compared to those in their third or fourth labor (13.2% vs. 7.8% or 6.1%, respectively; both cases, p < 0.01). There were no statistical differences in the rate of adverse outcomes between the third and fourth labor groups. Conclusions: Women in their second labor were more likely to have longer labor durations and a higher risk of CD compared to women in their third or fourth labor. No difference in rates of adverse outcomes was noted between the third and fourth labors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».