Is there an Increased Risk for Unfavorable Obstetric Outcomes in Women with Endometriosis? An Evaluation of Evidences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The present study is a systematic review of the literature to assess whether the presence of endometriosis determines or contributes to adverse obstetric outcomes. Data Sources The present work was carried out at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, state of São Paulo, Brazil, in accordance to the PRISMA methodology for systematic reviews. A review of the literature was performed using PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. The keywords used were: pregnancy outcome, pregnancy complications, obstetrical complications, obstetrics, obstetric outcomes and endometriosis. The survey was further completed by a manually executed review of cross-referenced articles, which was last performed on November 30, 2018. Selection of studies The survey disclosed a total of 2,468 articles, published from May 1946 to October 2017. A total of 18 studies were selected to be further classified according to their quality and relevance. Data Collection The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used for classification. Five studies of greater impact and superior evidence quality and 13 studies of moderate evidence quality were selected. We analyzed the studies for the characteristics of their patients plus how endometriosis was diagnosed and their respective obstetric outcomes taking into account their statistical relevance. Data Synthesis Analyses of the higher impact and better quality studies have shown high incidence of preterm birth and placenta previa in patients with endometriosis. Conclusion Placenta previa and preterm birth are the most statistically significant outcomes related to endometriosis, as indicated by our systematic review. The present information is useful to alert obstetricians and patients about possible unfavorable obstetric outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".