MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131408636 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113715

Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of International Clinical Practice Guidelines

2014· review· en· W2131408636 on OpenAlexaff
Tessa Gillon, Anouk Pels, Peter von Dadelszen, Karen MacDonell, Laura A. Magee

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreCollege of Physicians and Surgeons of OntarioUniversity of British ColumbiaChild and Family Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEclampsiaGuidelineGestational hypertensionMEDLINEHypertension in PregnancyCochrane LibraryPregnancyPediatricsFamily medicineObstetricsPreeclampsiaRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are developed to assist health care providers in decision-making. We systematically reviewed existing CPGs on the HDPs (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy) to inform clinical practice. METHODOLOGY & PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessments, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Ovid interface), Grey Matters, Google Scholar, and personal records were searched for CPGs on the HDPs (Jan/03 to Nov/13) in English, French, Dutch, or German. Of 13 CPGs identified, three were multinational and three developed for community/midwifery use. Length varied from 3-1188 pages and three guidelines did not formulate recommendations. Eight different grading systems were identified for assessing evidence quality and recommendation strength. No guideline scored ≧80% on every domain of the AGREE II, a tool for assessing guideline methodological quality; two CPGs did so for 5/6 domains. Consistency was seen for (i) definitions of hypertension, proteinuria, chronic and gestational hypertension; (ii) pre-eclampsia prevention for women at increased risk: calcium when intake is low and low-dose aspirin, but not vitamins C and E or diuretics; (iii) antihypertensive treatment of severe hypertension; (iv) MgSO4 for eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (v) antenatal corticosteroids at <34 wks when delivery is probable within 7 days; (vi) delivery for women with severe pre-eclampsia pre-viability or pre-eclampsia at term; and (vii) active management of the third stage of labour with oxytocin. Notable inconsistencies were in: (i) definitions of pre-eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (ii) target BP for non-severe hypertension; (iii) timing of delivery for women with pre-eclampsia and severe pre-eclampsia; (iv) MgSO4 for non-severe pre-eclampsia, and (v) postpartum maternal monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Existing international HDP CPGs have areas of consistency with which clinicians and researchers can work to develop auditable standards, and areas of inconsistency that should be addressed by future research.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations214
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207