Single‐ versus double‐layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the best available evidence regarding the association between single-layer closure and uterine rupture. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for relevant observational and experimental studies that included women with a previous single, low, transverse cesarean delivery who had attempted a trial of labor (TOL). The risks of uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence were assessed by pooled odds ratios (OR) calculated with a random effects model. RESULTS: Nine studies including 5810 women were reviewed. Overall, the risk of uterine rupture during TOL after a single-layer closure was not significantly different from that after a double-layer closure (OR 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-4.44). However, a sensitivity analysis indicated that the risk of uterine rupture was increased after a locked single-layer closure (OR 4.96; 95% CI 2.58-9.52, P<0.001) but not after an unlocked single-layer closure (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.21-1.16), compared with a double-layer closure. CONCLUSION: Locked but not unlocked single-layer closures were associated with a higher uterine rupture risk than double-layer closure in women attempting a TOL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".