Symphysiotomy for obstructed labour: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructed labour is a major cause of maternal mortality. Caesarean section can be associated with risks, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where it is not always readily available. Symphysiotomy can be an alternative treatment for obstructed labour and requires fewer resources. However, there is uncertainty about the safety and effectiveness of this procedure. OBJECTIVES: To compare symphysiotomy and caesarean section for obstructed labour. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, African Index Medicus, Reproductive Health Library and Science Citation Index (from inception to November 2015) without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies comparing symphysiotomy and caesarean section in all settings, with maternal and perinatal mortality as key outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Quality of the included studies was assessed using the STROBE checklist and the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Relative risks (RR) were pooled using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using I(2) tests. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 1266 women), all of which were set in low- and middle-income countries (as per the World Bank definition) and compared symphysiotomy and caesarean section were identified. Meta-analyses showed no significant difference in maternal (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13-1.76; P = 0.27) or perinatal (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64-1.96; P = 0.69) mortality with symphysiotomy when compared with caesarean section. There was a reduction in infection (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.62) but an increase in fistulae (RR 4.19, 95% CI 1.07-16.39) and stress incontinence with symphysiotomy (RR 10.04, 95% CI 3.23-31.21). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in key outcomes of maternal and perinatal mortality with symphysiotomy when compared with caesarean section. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Symphysiotomy could be an alternative to caesarean section when resources are limited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".