Misoprostol versus oxytocin for the reduction of postpartum blood loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of 400 mug of oral misoprostol with 5 U of intravenous oxytocin in the reduction of postpartum blood loss and prevention of postpartum hemorrhage. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted in a tertiary maternity hospital 622 women received either 400 mug of oral misoprostol or 5 U of intravenous oxytocin after delivery of the anterior shoulder or within 1 min of delivery. The primary outcome was a hematocrit drop of 10% or greater 24 h postpartum. The secondary outcomes were a hemoglobin drop of 30 mg/L or greater, the use of additional oxytocin, an estimated blood loss greater than 1000 mL, manual removal of the placenta, a blood transfusion, and shivering and fever (>or=38 degrees C) as adverse effects of misoprostol. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding the primary outcome (a >or=10% hematocrit drop occurred in 3.4% and 3.7% of the participants in the oxytocin and misoprostol groups, P=0.98). The rate of use of additional oxytocin was higher in the misoprostol group (51% versus 40.5%, P=0.01). Shivering was confined to the misoprostol group (6.8%), and fever occurred in 12.5% of the women in the misoprostol group and 0.3% of the women in the oxytocin group. CONCLUSION: The routine use of 400 microg of oral misoprostol was no less effective than 5 U of intravenous oxytocin in reducing blood loss after delivery, as assessed by change in postpartum hematocrit. The adverse effects of misoprostol were mild and self-limiting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".