MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766059015 · doi:10.2147/lra.s141569

Administration of epidural labor analgesia is not associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression in an urban Canadian population of mothers: a secondary analysis of prospective cohort data

2017· article· en· W2766059015 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLocal and Regional Anesthesia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of AlbertaHealth Research BoardWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineConfoundingOdds ratioBreastfeedingProspective cohort studyCohort studyPostpartum depressionObstetricsPopulationPregnancyConfidence intervalRelative riskLogistic regressionPediatricsDemographyEnvironmental healthSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common complication of pregnancy, affecting approximately 13% of mothers internationally. Previous research has examined whether epidural analgesia used for pain control during labor and birth is associated with a lower risk of PPD, but reports conflicting results and may have suffered from methodological shortcomings. Our study aimed to prospectively assess whether epidural analgesia is associated with a lower risk of PPD (at either 6 weeks or 6 months postpartum) after attempting to adequately adjust for selection bias and confounding variables. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of urban Canadian mothers who were recruited at birth in Calgary, Canada, in 2010, for a primary study on predictors of PPD. Mothers with full-term, singleton infants who did not require neonatal intensive care unit admission of >24 hours were included, and filled out questionnaires at birth, 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum including demographics, birth data, maternal and infant physical health, lifestyle, breastfeeding and maternal mental health. Descriptive statistics were calculated for participant characteristics and to identify potential confounder variables. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess whether epidural analgesia is associated with PPD after controlling for available confounding variables. RESULTS: Our study included 206 mothers who had vaginal deliveries and were free of depression at delivery. We found an incidence of PPD of 13.3% (n=27) and no statistically significant association between epidural use and PPD, regardless of adjustment for potential confounding variables (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.22; adjusted OR (for body mass index 1.04, 95% CI 0.40-2.77). CONCLUSION: We did not observe a significant association between epidural use and PPD. While the CIs are wide, we do not believe that this masks a clinically relevant association, and as such, the risks and benefits of epidural analgesia communicated to women during labor and delivery should not be modified.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.268 · 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