Rotational vaginal delivery with Kielland's forceps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of Kielland's forceps has declined significantly in the last three decades. There is a lack of quality evidence on potential benefits and harms associated with using these forceps. We have performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of using Kielland's forceps. RECENT FINDINGS: We have searched electronic databases for all clinical studies reporting primary data on using Kielland's forceps and assessed their risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We have pooled the event rate of adverse outcomes reported following the use of Kielland's forceps including a direct comparison to rotational ventouse. In total we included 23 studies. Direct comparison meta-analysis revealed higher failure rate with rotational ventouse compared with Kielland's. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of adverse maternal outcomes between the two groups. There was higher risk of neonatal trauma in the ventouse group, but no significant difference in other neonatal outcomes. SUMMARY: Kielland's forceps have a high success rate with relatively low adverse outcomes despite their use being controversial. In comparison to rotational ventouse, Kielland's forceps have higher efficacy with less risk of neonatal trauma.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".