MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056969912 · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00560-8

Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review

2000· review· en· W2056969912 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpisiotomyChildbirthRandomized controlled trialPerineumRelative riskMeta-analysisConfidence intervalMEDLINEObstetricsCochrane LibraryData extractionPsychological interventionPregnancyPhysical therapySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review systematically techniques proposed to prevent perineal trauma during childbirth and meta-analyze the evidence of their efficacy from randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-1999), the Cochrane Library (1999 Issue 1), and the Cochrane Collaboration: Pregnancy and Childbirth Database (1995); and reference lists from articles identified. Search terms included childbirth or pregnancy or delivery, and perineum, episiotomy, perineal massage, obstetric forceps, vacuum extraction, labor stage-second. No language or study-type constraints were imposed. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions affecting perineal trauma were reviewed. If no RCTs were available, nonrandomized research designs such as cohort studies were included. Studies were selected by examination of titles and abstracts of more than 1,500 articles, followed by analysis of the methods sections of studies that appeared to be RCTs. INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Eligible studies used random or quasirandom allocation of an intervention of interest and reported perineal outcomes. Further exclusions were based on failure to report results by intention to treat, or incomplete or internally inconsistent reporting of perineal outcomes. Final selection of studies and data extraction was by consensus of the first two authors. Data from trials that evaluated similar interventions were combined using a random effects model to determine weighted estimate of risk difference and number needed to treat. Effects of sensitivity analysis and quality scoring were examined. Results indicated good evidence that avoiding episiotomy decreased perineal trauma (absolute risk difference -0.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.35, -0.11). In nulliparas, perineal massage during the weeks before giving birth also protected against perineal trauma (risk difference -0.08, CI -0.12, -0.04). Vacuum extraction (risk difference -0.06, CI -0.10, -0.02) and spontaneous birth (-0.11, 95% CI -0.18, -0.04) caused less anal sphincter trauma than forceps delivery. The mother's position during the second stage has little influence on perineal trauma (supported upright versus recumbent: risk difference 0.02, 95% CI -0.05, 0.09). CONCLUSION: Factors shown to increase perineal integrity include avoiding episiotomy, spontaneous or vacuum-assisted rather than forceps birth, and in nulliparas, perineal massage during the weeks before childbirth. Second-stage position has little effect. Further information on techniques to protect the perineum during spontaneous delivery is sorely needed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it