MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systematic Review of the Literature on Postpartum Care: Methodology and Literature Search Results

2004· review· en· W2150001298 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

VenueBirth · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionCINAHLPsycINFOBreastfeedingSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEPostpartum periodCochrane LibraryPostpartum depressionFamily medicinePregnancyNursingPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The postpartum period is a time for multiple clinical interventions. To date, no critical review of these interventions exists. This systematic review examined evidence for the effectiveness of postpartum interventions that have been reported in the literature. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials of interventions initiated from immediately after birth to 1 year in postnatal women that were conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. The initial literature search was done in 1999, using postpartum content search terms, and was enhanced in 2003. In both years, bibliographic databases were searched from their inception. Studies were categorized into key topic areas. Data extraction forms were developed and completed for each study, and the quality of each study was systematically reviewed. Groups of studies in a topic area were reviewed together, and clinically relevant questions emanating from the studies were identified to determine whether the studies, alone or together, provided evidence to support the clinical intervention. RESULTS: In the 1999 search, of 671 studies identified, 140 studies were randomized controlled trials that met the selection criteria: 41 studies related to breastfeeding, 33 to postpartum perineal pain management, and 63 to 11 other key topic areas (Papanicolaou test, rubella immunization, contraception, postpartum support, early discharge, postpartum depression and anxiety, postpartum medical disorders, smoking cessation, nutrition supplements other than breastfeeding, effects of pelvic floor exercise, and effects of early newborn contact). The results of the systematic review of each topic will be summarized in separate papers as they are completed. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic search has identified key topic areas in postpartum care for which randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Our ultimate goal is to provide evidence-based guidelines on the use of routine postpartum interventions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.327 · 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