MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027186721 · doi:10.1111/aogs.13919

Augmentation of labor with oxytocin and its association with delivery outcomes: A large‐scale cohort study in 12 public hospitals in Nepal

2020· article· en· W3027186721 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Helena Litorp, Avinash K. Sunny, Ashish KC

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaVetenskapsrådetLaerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine
KeywordsMedicineOxytocinObstetricsCohort studyScale (ratio)CohortPregnancyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The use of oxytocin to augment labor is increasing in many low-resource settings; however, little is known about the effects of such use in contexts where resources for intrapartum monitoring are scarce. In this study, we sought to assess the association between augmentation of labor with oxytocin and delivery outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a cohort study in 12 public hospitals in Nepal, including all deliveries with and without augmentation of labor with oxytocin, but excluding elective cesarean sections, women with missing information on augmentation of labor, and women without fetal heart rate on admission. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression calculating the crude and adjusted risk ratio (aRR) with corresponding 95% CI were performed, comparing (a) intrapartum stillbirth and first-day mortality (primary outcome); and (b) intrapartum monitoring, mode of delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, bag-and-mask ventilation of the newborn, Apgar score, and neonatal death before discharge (secondary outcomes) among women with and without oxytocin-augmented labor. RESULTS: The total cohort consisted of 78 931 women, of whom 28 915 (37%) had labor augmented with oxytocin and 50 016 (63%) did not have labor augmented with oxytocin. Women with augmentation of labor had no increased risk of intrapartum stillbirth and first-day mortality (aRR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65-2.4), but decreased risks of suboptimal partograph use (aRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.74), suboptimal fetal heart rate monitoring (aRR 0.50, 95% CI 0.48-0.53), and emergency cesarean section (aRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.59-0.66), and increased risks of bag-and-mask ventilation (aRR 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5), Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes (aRR 1.65, 95% CI 1.49-1.86), and neonatal death (aRR 1.93, 95% CI 1.46-2.56). CONCLUSIONS: Although augmentation of labor with oxytocin might be associated with beneficial effects, such as improved monitoring and a decreased risk of cesarean section, its use may lead to an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. We urge for a cautious use of oxytocin to augment labor in low-resource contexts, and call for evidence-based guidelines on augmentation of labor in low-resource settings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207