MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083515984 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1407120

A Cluster-Randomized Trial to Reduce Cesarean Delivery Rates in Quebec

2015· article· en· W2083515984 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioCesarean deliveryCluster randomised controlled trialPregnancyRate ratioAuditCluster (spacecraft)ObstetricsIntervention (counseling)PediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Canada, cesarean delivery rates have increased substantially over the past decade. Effective, safe strategies are needed to reduce these rates. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized, controlled trial of a multifaceted 1.5-year intervention at 32 hospitals in Quebec. The intervention involved audits of indications for cesarean delivery, provision of feedback to health professionals, and implementation of best practices. The primary outcome was the cesarean delivery rate in the 1-year postintervention period. RESULTS: Among the 184,952 participants, 53,086 women delivered in the year before the intervention and 52,265 women delivered in the year following the intervention. There was a significant but small reduction in the rate of cesarean delivery from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the intervention group as compared with the control group (change, 22.5% to 21.8% in the intervention group and 23.2% to 23.5% in the control group; odds ratio for incremental change over time, adjusted for hospital and patient characteristics, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.99; P=0.04; adjusted risk difference, -1.8%; 95% CI, -3.8 to -0.2). The cesarean delivery rate was significantly reduced among women with low-risk pregnancies (adjusted risk difference, -1.7%; 95% CI, -3.0 to -0.3; P=0.03) but not among those with high-risk pregnancies (P=0.35; P = 0.03 for interaction). The intervention group also had a reduction in major neonatal morbidity as compared with the control group (adjusted risk difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1; P=0.03) and a smaller increase in minor neonatal morbidity (adjusted risk difference, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.6 to -0.9; P<0.001). Changes in minor and major maternal morbidity did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Audits of indications for cesarean delivery, feedback for health professionals, and implementation of best practices, as compared with usual care, resulted in a significant but small reduction in the rate of cesarean delivery, without adverse effects on maternal or neonatal outcomes. The benefit was driven by the effect of the intervention in low-risk pregnancies. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; QUARISMA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN95086407.).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.317 · 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