Surgical management of postpartum haemorrhage: survey of French obstetricians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of our study was to assess the theoretical and practical knowledge of French obstetricians about the surgical management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH). Our study is a national anonymous self-administered survey. A total of 363 obstetricians responded to this questionnaire between December 2013 and April 2014. Questionnaire sent through email to all French obstetricians who are members of either of two federations of hospital-based obstetricians. Answers were collected until the end of June 2014. The main outcome measure was obstetricians' level of mastery of each surgical technique. The results were analysed descriptively (proportions). Only the 286 questionnaires fully completed were analysed; the complete response rate was 23% (286/1246). In all, 33% (95/286) of the responding obstetricians reported that they had not mastered sufficiently or even at all the technique for bilateral ligation of the uterine arteries, 37% (105/286) for uterine compression suture, 62% (178/286) for ligation of the internal iliac arteries, and 47% (134/286) for emergency peripartum hysterectomy. In all, 18% (52/286) of respondents stated that they had not mastered any of these techniques. Our study shows that a worrisome number of French obstetricians reported insufficient mastery of the surgical techniques for PPH management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".