MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904540840 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000622

Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries at Vaginal Delivery: A Review of Recently Published National Guidelines

2018· review· en· W2904540840 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpisiotomyAnal sphincterGuidelineVaginal deliveryGynecologySurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASISs) complicate approximately 1 in 10 deliveries. Objective The aims of this study were to review and compare recommendations from recently published national guidelines regarding OASISs at vaginal delivery. Evidence Acquisition Three national guidelines on OASISs at vaginal delivery are presented through a descriptive review: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on “The Management of Third- and Fourth-Degree Perineal Tears,” American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on “Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery,” and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada on “Obstetrical Anal Sphincter Injuries (OASIS): Prevention, Recognition, and Repair.” These guidelines were summarized and compared in terms of prevention and management of OASISs. Quality of evidence was also reviewed based on method of reporting for each guideline. Results This published evidence reflects the differences between the national recommendations on the prevention and management of OASISs. Especially, as for the prevention of OASIS, routine use of episiotomy is not recommended, whereas warm perineal compresses and perineal massage during the second stage of labor seem to have a protective role. In the management of OASIS, special care is needed during the repair process of the torn anorectal mucosa and the internal and external anal sphincter. The postoperative use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, oral laxatives, and analgesia is also recommended. Conclusions Summarized guidelines can have an impact on special care in prevention and management of OASIS; this may support the reduction of morbidity associated with that entity. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians. Learning Objectives After participating in this activity, the learner should be better able to evaluate prevention strategies on OASISs in the antenatal and intrapartum period; compare management recommendations in cases of OASISs; and plan the appropriate consultation regarding future pregnancies and postpartum care in cases of OASISs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.126
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.126
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.250 · 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