MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586632725 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.12125

Cost‐effectiveness of condom uterine balloon tamponade to control severe postpartum hemorrhage in Kenya

2017· article· en· W2586632725 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mercy Mvundura, Donald Kokonya, Elizabeth Abu‐Haydar, Eunice Okoth, Tara Herrick, James Mukabi, Lucas C. Carlson, Monica Oguttu, Thomas F. Burke

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaMassachusetts General HospitalBill and Melinda Gates FoundationUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsMedicineUterine atonyCondomObstetricsTamponadeCost effectivenessGynecologyHysterectomySurgeryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of condom uterine balloon tamponade (UBT) for control of severe postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) due to uterine atony versus standard PPH care in Kenya. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using cost data collected from 30 facilities in Western Kenya from April 15 to July 16, 2015. Effectiveness data were derived from the published literature. The modeling analysis was performed from the health-system perspective for a cohort of women who gave birth in 2015. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of model estimates. Costs were in 2015 US dollars. RESULTS: Compared with standard care with no uterine packing, condom UBT could prevent 1255 hospital transfers, 430 hysterectomies, and 44 maternal deaths. At $5 or $15 per UBT device, the incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted was $26 or $40, respectively. If uterine packing was assumed to be done with standard care, the cost per DALY averted was $164 when the UBT price was $5 and $199 when the price was $15. CONCLUSION: Condom UBT was a highly cost-effective intervention for controlling severe PPH. This finding remained robust even when key model inputs were varied by wide margins.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207