MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606649825 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000422

Cerclage Use: A Review of 3 National Guidelines

2017· review· en· W2606649825 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCervical cerclageCervical insufficiencyGuidelineCervical dilationMEDLINERandomized controlled trialPerioperativeEvidence-based medicineObstetricsIntensive care medicinePregnancyGestationAlternative medicineSurgeryCervix

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Preterm birth is a major contributor to perinatal morbidity and mortality. The most common intervention performed to improve perinatal outcomes for a woman experiencing cervical dilation in the second trimester without signs or symptoms of preterm labor is the cerclage. OBJECTIVE: We sought to review and compare available national guidelines on cerclage use. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a descriptive review of 3 national guidelines on cerclage: The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin on "Cerclage for the Management of Cervical Insufficiency," Green-top Guideline from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists entitled "Cervical Cerclage," and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada Clinical Practice Bulletin entitled "Cervical Insufficiency and Cervical Cerclage." Guidelines were compared, and the following aspects of cerclage use for prevention of preterm delivery were summarized: indications and contraindications, risk factors for cervical insufficiency, perioperative considerations, and timing of removal. Recommendations and strength of evidence were reviewed based on each guideline's method of reporting. The references were compared with regard to the total number of randomized control trials, Cochrane Reviews, and systematic reviews/meta-analyses cited. RESULTS: The variations highlighted in the guidelines reflect the heterogeneity of the literature contributing to guidelines and the challenges of diagnosing and managing cervical insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: A cohesive international guideline may improve safety and quality and optimize patient outcomes. TARGET AUDIENCE: Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completing this activity, the learner should be better able to outline variations in indications and contraindications for cervical cerclage use by international guideline, identify variation in perioperative considerations for cervical cerclage use by international guideline, and recognize variation in timing of removal by international guideline.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.213
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.213
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.685
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.147 · 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