MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921033702 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1808817

A Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Antibiotics for Miscarriage Surgery

2019· article· en· W2921033702 on OpenAlexaff
D. Lissauer, Amie Wilson, Catherine A Hewitt, Lee Middleton, Jonathan Bishop, Jane Daniels, Abi Merriel, Andrew Weeks, Chisale Mhango, Ronald Mataya, Frank Taulo, Theresa Ngalawesa, Agatha Chirwa, Colleta Mphasa, Tayamika Tambala, Grace Chiudzu, Caroline Mwalwanda, Agnes Mboma, Rahat Qureshi, Iffat Ahmed, Humera Ismail, Olufemi T. Oladapo, Godfrey Mbaruku, Jerome Chibwana, Grace Watts, Beatus Simon, James Ditai, Charles Otim Tom, Jane-Frances Acam, John Ekunait, Hellen Unzia, Margaret Iyaku, Joshua J. Makiika, Javier Zamora, Tracy Roberts, Ilias Goranitis, Sarah Bar‐Zeev, Nicola Desmond, Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, A. Metin Gülmezog̈lu, Arri Coomarasamy

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationCentre for Global Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenInstitute of Health Economics
FundersDepartment for International DevelopmentNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilWellcomeWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineMiscarriageProphylactic SurgeryRandomized controlled trialAntibioticsProphylactic antibioticSurgeryPregnancyAntibiotic prophylaxisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgical intervention is needed in some cases of spontaneous abortion to remove retained products of conception. Antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of pelvic infection, which is an important complication of this surgery, particularly in low-resource countries. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial investigating whether antibiotic prophylaxis before surgery to complete a spontaneous abortion would reduce pelvic infection among women and adolescents in low-resource countries. We randomly assigned patients to a single preoperative dose of 400 mg of oral doxycycline and 400 mg of oral metronidazole or identical placebos. The primary outcome was pelvic infection within 14 days after surgery. Pelvic infection was defined by the presence of two or more of four clinical features (purulent vaginal discharge, pyrexia, uterine tenderness, and leukocytosis) or by the presence of one of these features and the clinically identified need to administer antibiotics. The definition of pelvic infection was changed before the unblinding of the data; the original strict definition was two or more of the clinical features, without reference to the administration of antibiotics. RESULTS: We enrolled 3412 patients in Malawi, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. A total of 1705 patients were assigned to receive antibiotics and 1707 to receive placebo. The risk of pelvic infection was 4.1% (68 of 1676 pregnancies) in the antibiotics group and 5.3% (90 of 1684 pregnancies) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.04; P = 0.09). Pelvic infection according to original strict criteria was diagnosed in 1.5% (26 of 1700 pregnancies) and 2.6% (44 of 1704 pregnancies), respectively (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96). There were no significant between-group differences in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis before miscarriage surgery did not result in a significantly lower risk of pelvic infection, as defined by pragmatic broad criteria, than placebo. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and others; AIMS Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN97143849.).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207