MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recommendations from international clinical guidelines for routine antenatal infection screening

2014· review· en· W2315988358 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. Piso, I. Reinsperger, R Winkler

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive tract infections research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineFamily medicineMEDLINESystematic reviewPediatricsGynecologyPathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Maternal infections in pregnancy may cause severe child morbidity. In this article, we aim to summarise recommendations from international evidence-based clinical guidelines for infection screening in pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for evidence-based guidelines in two databases (Guidelines International Network and National Guideline Clearinghouse) and a hand search on websites of international institutions and societies that develop evidence-based guidelines. We considered guidelines published from the 1 of January 2007 onwards and developed in Western, industrialised countries. The guidelines in our analysis had to be based on a systematic literature search in at least two databases and needed to provide recommendations explicitly linked to the evidence. We included five general antenatal clinical practice guidelines from Australia, UK and the United States and 20 disease-specific guidelines published by Canadian, German, UK and US guideline development groups. RESULTS: The comparison of evidence-based guidelines from nine different guideline development groups for 17 antenatal infection screenings showed variations in directions (pro-screening or contra-screening) as well as in grades of recommendations. Uniformly, all-pro-universal or all-contra-universal screening recommendations were identified for 10 of 17 diseases. Contradictions were primarily observed for group B streptococcus, chlamydia trachomatis, genital herpes and gonorrhoea infection screening. Whereas certainty of recommendations was high for all-pro-screening recommendations, it decreased in all-contra-screening recommendations and even displayed conflicting results for contradictory recommendations. CONCLUSION: The variety of grades of recommendations hamper across-guideline comparison. Nevertheless, the article highlights agreed screening areas based on the best available evidence as well as areas of still existing uncertainty. Local health policy decisions on whether to include or refrain from including screening measures in preventive care programmes can be facilitated by the comparison of recommendations from international evidence-based guidelines. Beyond the availability of evidence each country's health policy makers will have to make a judgement on the value of the test for a population-wide screening.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.209
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.209
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.696
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.082 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based HealthcareSame topicReproductive tract infections researchFrench-language works237,207