MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2761699220 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e48

41: Neonatal Resuscitation Following Caesarean Section: A Retrospective Chart Review

2015· article· en· W2761699220 on OpenAlexaff
Jim Weir, Susan M. Smith, Juliet Soper

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCaesarean sectionResuscitationApgar scoreNeonatal resuscitationFetal distressObstetricsIntubationEmergency medicineGestational agePregnancyAnesthesiaFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infants delivered by elective caesarean section have similar need for resuscitation as infants delivered by spontaneous vaginal deliveries. Approximately 10% of deliveries are estimated to require neonatal resuscitation with 1% requiring extensive measures. A health care provider certified by the Neonatal Resuscitation Program but without advanced airway skills is therefore considered sufficient at low risk deliveries. We undertook this study to determine the use of resuscitation and the health care providers in attendance at caesarean section deliveries in our centre. A retrospective chart review of 200 emergent and elective caesarean section deliveries was conducted in a small urban centre between January 2012 and 2013. Indications for caesarean section delivery were recorded. Health care providers present, whether the infant received suctioning, bag/mask ventilation, oxygen, intubation, or compressions, and APGARS at 1 and 5 minutes were recorded. χ2 tests used to determine potential differences between health care provider type and the use of resuscitation or not. Odds ratios are presented as a measure of effect size. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to examine differences in Apgar scores by group (resuscitation or not) to account for the significant skew in the distribution of APGAR scores at both 1 and 5 minutes. 220 infants were delivered through 200 caesarean section deliveries. Indications for caesarean section were maternal request (2%), failure to progress (18%), fetal distress (24%), previous caesarian section (35%), fetal indicators (18%), and maternal illness indicators (3%). 108/220 (49%) infants received suctioning, 26/220 (12%) received bag/mask ventilation, 23/220 (10%) received oxygen, and 15/220 (7%) were intubated. No infants required chest compressions. APGARs were lower in the group that received any form of resuscitation (1 minute z=−3.78, P<0.001; 5 minute z=−3.35, P<0.001). Gestational age (P=0.94), multiple fetuses (P=0.86), fetal heart rate (P=0.33), and prolonged rupture of membranes (P=0. 80) were not significantly associated with infants receiving resuscitation. Meconium in liquor (P<0.05) and fetal decelerations (P<0.005) were significantly associated with receiving resuscitation. Infants were less likely to receive resuscitation if a pediatrician was in attendance (P<0.001, OR=0.32, CI=0.16–0.65) however respiratory therapist attendance at the caesarean section significantly increased rate of resuscitation (P<0.01, OR=2.22, CI=1.23–4.02). The resuscitation rate in our centre was found to be significantly higher than expected. It was found that pediatrician presence at delivery decreased resuscitation requirements and respiratory therapist increased risk for resuscitation. Reasons for these observations need to be explored.

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)0.006
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention→French-language works237,207→