The Effect of Gowning on Labor Epidural Catheter Colonization Rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The need to gown for labor epidural catheter insertion is controversial. The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine has identified a lack of randomized controlled trials investigating this issue. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of gowning on colonization rates following epidural catheter insertion for labor analgesia. METHODS: Following research ethics board approval and informed written consent, parturients were randomized to undergo epidural analgesia with the anesthesiologist either ungowned or wearing a sterile gown. Cultures were obtained from each of the operator forearms, the work area under the insertion site, and from the epidural catheter tip as well as from the catheter segment adjacent to the insertion site. The primary outcome was growth of any microbial organisms from the cultured sites. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients completed the study. There were no significant differences in catheter-tip colonization rates between the ungowned and gowned groups (9.2% vs 7.6%, respectively). The most common microorganism that was cultured was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. CONCLUSIONS: The use of gowns in the current study did not affect catheter colonization rate. Overall, there was a relatively high incidence of catheter-tip colonization in both groups, which underscores the need for strict aseptic technique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".