MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754609856 · doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2150-x

A cluster-randomized trial to reduce major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean delivery in Québec (PRISMA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2017· article· en· W2754609856 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nils Chaillet, Emmanuel Bujold, Benoı̂t Mâsse, William A. Grobman, Patrick Rozenberg, J.‐C. Pasquier, Allison Shorten, Mira Johri, François Beaudoin, Haim A. Abenhaim, Suzanne Demers, William D. Fraser, Marc-André Dugas, Simon Blouin, E. Dubé, Robert Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkMcGill UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversidad de Buenos AiresPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityNorthwestern University
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialRandomizationPregnancyObstetricsIntervention (counseling)Cesarean deliveryCluster randomised controlled trialClinical trialPediatricsSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rates of cesarean delivery are continuously increasing in industrialized countries, with repeated cesarean accounting for about a third of all cesareans. Women who have undergone a first cesarean are facing a difficult choice for their next pregnancy, i.e.: (1) to plan for a second cesarean delivery, associated with higher risk of maternal complications than vaginal delivery; or (b) to have a trial of labor (TOL) with the aim to achieve a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and to accept a significant, but rare, risk of uterine rupture and its related maternal and neonatal complications. The objective of this trial is to assess whether a multifaceted intervention would reduce the rate of major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a stratified, non-blinded, cluster-randomized, parallel-group trial of a multifaceted intervention. Hospitals in Quebec are the units of randomization and women are the units of analysis. As depicted in Figure 1, the study includes a 1-year pre-intervention period (baseline), a 5-month implementation period, and a 2-year intervention period. At the end of the baseline period, 20 hospitals will be allocated to the intervention group and 20 to the control group, using a randomization stratified by level of care. Medical records will be used to collect data before and during the intervention period. Primary outcome is the rate of a composite of major perinatal morbidities measured during the intervention period. Secondary outcomes include major and minor maternal morbidity; minor perinatal morbidity; and TOL and VBAC rate. The effect of the intervention will be assessed using the multivariable generalized-estimating-equations extension of logistic regression. The evaluation will include subgroup analyses for preterm and term birth, and a cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: The intervention is designed to facilitate: (1) women's decision-making process, using a decision analysis tool (DAT), (2) an estimate of uterine rupture risk during TOL using ultrasound evaluation of low-uterine segment thickness, (3) an estimate of chance of TOL success, using a validated prediction tool, and (4) the implementation of best practices for intrapartum management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN15346559 . Registered on 20 August 2015.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.003

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207