MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107116490 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12036

Timing of administration of prophylactic antibiotics for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2012· review· en· W2107116490 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan Ba’aqeel, R Baaqeel

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMedizinische Universität WienUniversität Wien
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskCaesarean sectionConfidence intervalNeonatal sepsisNeonatal intensive care unitNumber needed to treatCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisSepsisRandomized controlled trialAntibiotic prophylaxisPediatricsAntibioticsObstetricsPregnancySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic antibiotics reduce infectious morbidity from caesarean section. The timing of their administration, however, is a matter of controversy. OBJECTIVES: To examine maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity in women receiving preoperative prophylaxis compared with those receiving intraoperative administration. SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline, Embase, Current Controlled Trials and Cochrane Central were searched from their inception dates to December 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of a single dose of any antibiotic comparing preoperative with intraoperative administration were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial characteristics, outcomes and quality measures, based on the Cochrane tool for risk of bias, were independently extracted. The random effect model of DerSimonian and Laird to estimate relative risks (RRs) for maternal and neonatal outcomes was used. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 2313 women and 2345 newborns. Preoperative administration was associated with a significant 41% reduction in the rate of endometritis compared with intraoperative administration (RR 0.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.37-0.94; I2 0%). In the preoperative group, there were nonsignificant reductions in the rates of wound infection (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.44-1.14; I2 0%), maternal febrile morbidity (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.46-1.95; I2 0%), neonatal sepsis (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.47-1.41; I2 0%), neonatal septic work-up (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.71-1.21; I2 0%) and neonatal intensive-care unit admission (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.28; I2 0%). There were nonsignificant increases in the rates of maternal pyelonephritis (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.49-2.43; I2 0%) and neonatal pneumonia (RR 3.36; 95% CI 0.55-20.47; I2 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with intraoperative administration, preoperative antibiotics significantly reduce the rate of endometritis. The lack of neonatal adverse effects should be cautiously interpreted given the limited power of the trials to detect such effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.032
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations107
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207