MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2942960417 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022981

The Ghana PrenaBelt trial: a double-blind, sham-controlled, randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effect of maternal positional therapy during third-trimester sleep on birth weight

2019· article· en· W2942960417 on OpenAlexafffund
Jerry Coleman, Maxfield Okere, J.D. Seffah, Allan J. Kember, Louise M. O’Brien, Ali Borazjani, Michael Butler, Jesse Wells, Sarah MacRitchie, André Isaac, Kaishin Chu, Heather Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsCanadian Centre for Policy AlternativesUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaDalhousie UniversityGovernment of CanadaDalhousie Medical Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyThird trimesterDouble blindSleep (system call)PregnancyObstetricsBirth weightFirst trimesterAlternative medicineGestationSurgeryInternal medicinePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect, on birth weight and birth weight centile, of use of the PrenaBelt, a maternal positional therapy device, during sleep in the home setting throughout the third trimester of pregnancy. DESIGN: A double-blind, sham-controlled, randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Conducted from September 2015 to May 2016, at a single, tertiary-level centre in Accra, Ghana. PARTICIPANTS: at the first antenatal appointment for the index pregnancy and without known foetal abnormalities, pregnancy complications or medical conditions complicating sleep. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised by computer-generated, one-to-one, simple randomisation to receive either the PrenaBelt or sham-PrenaBelt. Participants were instructed to wear their assigned device to sleep every night for the remainder of their pregnancy (approximately 12 weeks in total) and were provided a sleep diary to track their use. Allocation concealment was by unmarked, security-tinted, sealed envelopes. Participants and the outcomes assessor were blinded to allocation. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were birth weight and birth weight centile. Secondary outcomes included adherence to using the assigned device nightly, sleeping position, pregnancy outcomes and feedback from participants and maternity personnel. RESULTS: One-hundred-sixty-seven participants were included in the primary analysis. The adherence to using the assigned device nightly was 56%. The mean ±SD birth weight in the PrenaBelt group (n=83) was 3191g±483 and in the sham-PrenaBelt group (n=84) was 3081g±484 (difference 110 g, 95% CI -38 to 258, p=0.14). The median (IQR) customised birth weight centile in the PrenaBelt group was 43% (18 to 67) and in the sham-PrenaBelt group was 31% (14 to 58) (difference 7%, 95% CI -2 to 17, p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: The PrenaBelt did not have a statistically significant effect on birth weight or birth weight centile in comparison to the sham-PrenaBelt. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02379728.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→