MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974382022 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v11n11p120

Indications for Caesarean Sections in Rundu State Hospital in Kavango East Region, Namibia

2019· article· en· W2974382022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saara Hatupopi, Mirjam Nghamukamo, Emma Maano Nghitanwa, Olivia Ningeninawa Tuhadeleni

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaesarean sectionCephalopelvic disproportionMedicineObstetricsVaginal deliveryChildbirthPopulationHysterectomyFetal distressMedical recordUterine rupturePregnancySurgeryFetusUterus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A caesarean section is a life saving procedure for both the mother and the baby. However, the fact that caesarean section rates are increasing worldwide, in both the developed and developing countries is becoming an issue of increasing concern, which raised a concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the indications for a caesarean section in the Rundu State Hospital. METHODS: A cross sectional retrospective study was conducted.The study population comprised the records of women who had undergone caesarean section between 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2017. After conducting a sample size calculation the delivery, records of 149 women who had undergone a caesarean section during the study period were reviewed. The required data was collected using individual data collection sheets and then analysed using SPSS version 24. RESULTS: The age of participants ranged between 20 and 50 years. The mean age for the study group was 25.1 years. The overall leading indications for a caesarean section included foetal distress (25.6%), previous uterine scar (18.1%) and Cephalopelvic disproportion (16.1%) while other major contributing indications were eclampsia (16.1%), mal-presentation (8.1%), prolonged labour (6.7%, ante partum haemorrhage (3.4%), failed vaginal birth after caesarean section (2.0%), cord prolapse (1.3%) and severe vaginal warts (0.6%). In addition, the study found that a primary caesarean section was more common at 81.9% as compared to previous uterine scar at 18.1 % while maternal indications contributed to 61% of caesarean sections while foetal indications constituted 39%. CONCLUSION: Overall, the study found that the leading indications for caesarean section were foetal distress and previous uterine scar. It was recommended that foetal distress, as the main indicator for a primary caesarean section, should be further confirmed with a printed cardiotocograph. Training health workers on the interpretation of cardiotocograph and the importance of the use of other methods, such as the fetoscope and doptone, may help to reduce the incidence of unnecessary primary caesarean section due to foetal distress. In addition, previous uterine scar cases should be embark on labour before a decision is made.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207