MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809099124 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15335

Core outcome sets for prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: an international Delphi consensus study

2018· article· en· W2809099124 on OpenAlexaff
Shireen Meher, Anna Cuthbert, Jamie J Kirkham, Paula Williamson, Edgardo Ábalos, Nasreen Aflaifel, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Alex Bishop, Jennifer Blum, Peter W. Collins, Declan Devane, A.-S. Ducloy-Bouthors, Bukola Fawole, AM Gülmezoglu, Kathryn Gutteridge, Gillian ML Gyte, S. Mallaiah, JM Smith, Andrew Weeks, Žarko Alfirević

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Medical AssociationWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodPsychological interventionPopulationBlood transfusionBreastfeedingLikert scaleFamily medicineNursingPediatricsPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop core outcome sets (COS) for studies evaluating interventions for (1) prevention and (2) treatment of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), and recommendations on how to report the COS. DESIGN: A two-round Delphi survey and face-to-face meeting. POPULATION: Healthcare professionals and women's representatives. METHODS: Outcomes were identified from systematic reviews of PPH studies and stakeholder consultation. Participants scored each outcome in the Delphi on a Likert scale between 1 (not important) and 9 (critically important). Results were discussed at the face-to-face meeting to agree the final COS. Consensus at the meeting was defined as ≥ 70% of participants scoring the outcome as critically important (7-9). Lectures, discussion and voting were used to agree how to report COS outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes from systematic reviews and consultations. RESULTS: Both Delphi rounds were completed by 152/205 (74%) participants for prevention and 143/197 (73%) for treatment. For prevention of PPH, nine core outcomes were selected: blood loss, shock, maternal death, use of additional uterotonics, blood transfusion, transfer for higher level of care, women's sense of wellbeing, acceptability and satisfaction with the intervention, breastfeeding, and adverse effects. For treatment of PPH, 12 core outcomes were selected: blood loss, shock, coagulopathy, hysterectomy, organ dysfunction, maternal death, blood transfusion, use of additional haemostatic intervention, transfer for higher level of care, women's sense of wellbeing, acceptability and satisfaction with the intervention, breastfeeding, and adverse effects. Recommendations were developed on how to report these outcomes where possible. CONCLUSIONS: These COS will help standardise outcome reporting in PPH trials. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Core outcome sets for PPH: nine core outcomes for PPH prevention and 12 core outcomes for PPH treatment.

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)0.376
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.317
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3760.317
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.019
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.340
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.197 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations126
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & GynaecologySame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207