Standards for the provision of antenatal care for patients with inflammatory bowel disease: guidance endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology and the British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Comprehensive guidelines on medical management have been published; yet, there is limited guidance on service set-up and minimum standards of care for pregnant women with IBD. AIM: To develop a position statement on service set-up and minimum standards of care in the UK. METHODS: A working group consisting of 16 gastroenterologists, obstetricians, obstetric physician, IBD specialist nurses and midwives was assembled. Initial draft statements were produced and a modified Delphi process with two rounds of voting applied. Statements were modified according to voters' feedback after each round. Statements with ≥80% agreement were accepted. RESULTS: All 15 statements met criteria for inclusion. To facilitate optimal care, regular and effective communication between IBD and obstetric teams is required. There should be nominated link clinicians for IBD in obstetric units and for pregnancy in IBD units. Preconception counselling should be available for all women with IBD. All pregnant women should be advised on the safety of IBD medication during pregnancy and breast feeding, the optimal mode of delivery, the management of biologics (where applicable) and safety of childhood vaccinations. Regular audit of pregnancy outcomes and documentation of advice given is recommended. CONCLUSION: Position statements have been developed that advise on the importance of joined-up multidisciplinary care, proactive decision-making with clear documentation and communication to the woman and other healthcare practitioners.
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 | 0.057 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
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".