MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125336516 · doi:10.1080/14767050500451470

A systematic review of intentional delivery in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes

2006· review· en· W2125336516 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Hartling, Radha Chari, Carol A. Friesen, Ben Vandermeer, Thierry Lacaze‐Masmonteil

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRupture of membranesPreterm deliveryMedicineObstetricsPregnancyGestationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of intentional delivery versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). METHODS: We searched electronic databases and trials registries, contacted experts, and checked reference lists of relevant studies. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials comparing intentional delivery versus expectant management after PPROM, the gestational age of participants was between 30 and 36 weeks, and the study reported one of several pre-determined outcomes. RESULTS: Four studies were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was found between intentional delivery and expectant management in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) length of stay (LOS) (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.81 day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.66, 0.04), respiratory distress syndrome (risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.07, 0.06), and confirmed neonatal sepsis (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.05, 0.04). One study found a significantly lower incidence of suspected neonatal sepsis among the intentional delivery group (RD -0.31, 95% CI -0.50, -0.12; number needed to treat (NNT) 3, 95% CI 2, 8). Maternal LOS was significantly shorter for the intentional delivery group (WMD -1.39 day, 95% CI -2.03, -0.75). There was a significant difference in the incidence of clinical chorioamnionitis favoring intentional delivery (RD -0.16, 95% CI -0.23, -0.10; NNT 6, 95% CI 5, 11). There was no significant difference in the incidence of other maternal outcomes, including cesarean section (RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.01, 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Intentional delivery may be favorable to expectant management for some maternal outcomes (chorioamnionitis and LOS). There is insufficient evidence to suggest that either strategy is beneficial or harmful for the baby. Large multicenter trials with primary neonatal outcomes are required to assess whether intentional delivery is associated with less neonatal morbidity.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.011
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207