MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002688199 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000752

Induction of Labor: An Overview of Guidelines

2020· article· en· W3002688199 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ιoannis Tsakiridis, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Apostolos Athanasiadis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNiceGuidelineExcellenceLabor inductionInduction of laborMisoprostolFamily medicineNursingObstetricsPregnancyAbortionOxytocin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Induction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetric intervention that stimulates the onset of labor using artificial methods. Objective The aim of this study was to summarize and compare recommendations from 4 national or international medical societies on the IOL. Evidence Acquisition A descriptive review was conducted of major published guidelines on IOL: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' “Induction of Labor” and “Management of Late-Term and Postterm Pregnancies,” the guidelines of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) on “Induction of Labour,” those of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on “Inducing Labour,” and the World Health Organization's (WHO's) “Recommendations for Induction of Labour” and “WHO Recommendations: Induction of Labour at or Beyond Term.” These guidelines were compared in terms of their recommendations on clinical indications and methods. Results Many similar indications and contraindications to IOL are identified between American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and SOGC, whereas NICE and WHO do not mention any contraindications. The timing of IOL in postterm pregnancies also differs among the guidelines. Regarding the methods of induction, all the medical societies recommend the use of membrane sweeping, mechanical methods, prostaglandins, and oxytocin, whereas NICE argues against the use of misoprostol for IOL. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and SOGC consider amniotomy a method of IOL, whereas NICE and WHO do not recommend it. All the guidelines also make similar recommendations regarding the management of uterine tachysystole in cases of IOL. Conclusions The World Health Organization seems to be the most evidence-based guideline with recommendations based mainly on Cochrane reviews. The variation in the clinical indications and methods of IOL highlights the need to adopt an international consensus, which may help to optimize the quality of obstetric care and further promote evidence-based medicine. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians. Learning Objectives After participating in this activity, the learner should be better able to identify the appropriate indications for induction of labor; explain the effectiveness and associated risks of using prostaglandins, misoprostol, oxytocin, and amniotomy for induction of labor; and assess the definition and alternatives of failure of induction of labor.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.486
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.016 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207