MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intrapartum antibiotics for known maternal Group B streptococcal colonization

2009· review· en· W2159114744 on OpenAlexaff
Arne Ohlsson, Vibhuti Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeonatal sepsisRelative riskIncidence (geometry)Group BNeonatal infectionConfidence intervalPregnancyAntibiotic prophylaxisChildbirthRandomized controlled trialStreptococcusSepsisStreptococcus agalactiaeObstetricsAntibioticsPediatricsInternal medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maternal colonization with group B streptococcus (GBS) during pregnancy increases the risk of neonatal infection by vertical transmission. Administration of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) during labor has been associated with a reduction in early onset GBS disease (EOGBSD). However, treating all colonized women during labor exposes a large number of women and infants to possible adverse effects without benefit. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IAP for maternal GBS colonization on neonatal: 1) all cause mortality and 2) morbidity from proven and probable EOGBSD, late onset GBS disease (LOD), maternal infectious outcomes and allergic reactions to antibiotics. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials assessing the impact of maternal IAP on neonatal GBS infections were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed eligibility and quality of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials (involving 852 women) evaluating the effects of IAP versus no treatment were included. The risk of bias was high. The use of IAP did not significantly reduce the incidence of all cause mortality, mortality from GBS infection or from infections caused by bacteria other than GBS. The incidence of early GBS infection was reduced with IAP compared to no treatment (risk ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.74, three trials, 488 infants; risk difference -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; number needed to treat to benefit 25, 95% CI 14 to 100, I(2) 0%). The incidence of LOD or sepsis from organisms other than GBS and puerperal infection was not significantly different between groups.One trial (involving 352 women) compared intrapartum ampicillin versus penicillin and reported no significant difference in neonatal or maternal outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis appeared to reduce EOGBSD, but this result may well be a result of bias as we found a high risk of bias for one or more key domains in the study methodology and execution. There is lack of evidence from well designed and conducted trials to recommend IAP to reduce neonatal EOGBSD.Ideally the effectiveness of IAP to reduce neonatal GBS infections should be studied in adequately sized double-blind controlled trials. The opportunity to conduct such trials has likely been lost, as practice guidelines (albeit without good evidence) have been introduced in many jurisdictions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations237
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207