Efficacy and safety of blood transfusion in obstetric patients: systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of blood transfusion compared to no intervention in obstetric patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed with Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, PubMed, EMBASE and LILACS databases searched as of September, 2016. Two authors independently selected relevant clinical trials, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data, using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Five studies within a total of 6,297 met the inclusion criteria, with women generally aged 20-40 years. Three included studies allocated women to receive blood transfusion or no intervention. Two other studies allocated women with either restricted or full blood supplies. The major issue regarding risk of bias was the extent of concealment of randomization and blinding. There was no statistically significant difference between blood transfusion versus no transfusion or restricted blood supply on mortality (relative risk 0.82 [95% confidential interval 0.32 to 2.09], p = 0.68; two studies; I2 = not applicable). CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality evidence suggests no significant difference between blood transfusion and no intervention in obstetric patients, underlining the need for more robust clinical trials evaluating this area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".