MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2484414632 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107445161.031

Ventouse and forceps delivery

2014· book-chapter· en· W2484414632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Paterson‐Brown, Charlotte Howell

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaginal deliveryMedicineForceps deliveryForcepsObstetrics and gynaecologyObstetricsPregnancySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives On successfully completing this topic, you will be able to: decide when an instrumental delivery is appropriate decide which instrument is most appropriate in a specific circumstance appreciate the techniques required for vacuum and forceps delivery recognise and appreciate the causes of failure to deliver with the instrument selected know what to do when the instrumental delivery has failed. Introduction Operative vaginal delivery (OVD) aims to expedite the delivery of a baby who is believed to be at risk of compromise or when the mother is unable to push it out herself. Worldwide, assisted vaginal delivery remains an integral part of the obstetrician's duties. Rates vary from 1.5% of deliveries (Czech Republic) to 15% (Australia and Canada) and from 9% to 13% regionally in the UK. These varying rates reflect not only different clinical practices but also different attitudes. Low OVD rates may reflect high CS rates, including those performed at full dilatation, because of a reluctance to perform instrumental deliveries. There is evidence of an increasing trend towards using emergency CS directly for delay in the second stage, without resort to a trial of instrumental delivery. This is particularly with occipito-posterior positions at midcavity. Although instrumental vaginal delivery can be hazardous and should be undertaken with care, the difficulty of CS at full dilatation should not be underestimated; it can be extremely difficult and is associated with high maternal morbidity. There is emerging evidence to support the direct supervision of trainees in this situation in order to maximise the appropriate number of operative vaginal deliveries both attempted and achieved. Women who labour are, by definition, aiming for vaginal delivery and therefore efforts should be focused on helping them to achieve this normally and safely. Various techniques may help in achieving high spontaneous vaginal delivery rates, such as the use of a partogram, companionship in labour, delaying pushing in women who have had epidural anaesthesia, upright posture and active management of the second stage of labour using oxytocin in nulliparae with epidurals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.021

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions→French-language works237,207→