MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour

2006· review· en· W2762845577 on OpenAlexaff
William D. Fraser, Lucile Turcot, Isabelle Krauss, Gisèle Brisson-Carrol

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalHôpital Saint-François d'AssiseCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChildbirthOdds ratioConfidence intervalApgar scoreObstetricsPregnancyRandomized controlled trialGestational ageSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early amniotomy has been advocated as a component of the active management of labour. Several randomised trials comparing routine amniotomy to an attempt to conserve the membranes have been published. Their limited sample sizes limit their ability to address the effects of amniotomy on indicators of maternal and neonatal morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of amniotomy on the rate of Cesarean delivery and on other indicators of maternal and neonatal morbidity (Apgar less than 7 at 5 minutes, admission to NICU). SEARCH STRATEGY: The register of clinical trials maintained and updated by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. SELECTION CRITERIA: All acceptably controlled trials of amniotomy during first stage of labour were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two trained reviewers from published reports. Trials were assigned methodological quality scores based on a standardized rating system. Typical odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using Peto's method. MAIN RESULTS: Amniotomy was associated with a reduction in labour duration of between 60 and 120 minutes. There was a marked trend toward an increase in the risk of Cesarean delivery: OR = 1.26; 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=0.96-1.66. The likelihood of a 5 minute Apgar score less than 7 was reduced in association with early amniotomy (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.30-0.96). Groups were similar with respect to other indicators of neonatal status (arterial cord pH, NICU admissions). There was a statistically significant association of amniotomy with a decrease in the use of oxytocin: OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.67-0.92. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Routine early amniotomy is associated with both benefits and risks. Benefits include a reduction in labour duration and a possible reduction in abnormal 5-minute Apgar scores. The meta-analysis provides no support for the hypothesis that routine early amniotomy reduces the risk of Cesarean delivery. Indeed there is a trend toward an increase in Cesarean section. An association between early amniotomy and Cesarean delivery for fetal distress is noted in one large trial. This suggests that amniotomy should be reserved for women with abnormal labour progress.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207