Review of available national guidelines for obstetric anal sphincter injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) are the most severe form of perineal trauma with potentially devastating effects on a mother's quality of life. There are various national guidelines available for their management. The aim of this study was to review and compare recommendations from published national guidelines regarding management and prevention of OASI. METHODS: We searched the PUBMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and COCHRANE databases from January 2008 till October 2019 using relevant Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), including all subheadings. The guideline characteristics were mapped and methodological quality assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool by three independent reviewers. To compare the methodological quality of the guidelines, the interpretation of the six domain scores were taken into consideration. By consensus of the authors, a score of 70% was taken as a cut-off, and scores above this were considered 'high quality'. RESULTS: Thirteen national guidelines on perineal trauma were included and analysed. Nine of these were specific to OASI. There is wide variation in methodological quality and evidence used for recommendations. AGREE scores for overall guideline assessment were > 70% in eight of the guidelines, with Australia-Queensland, Canada, the UK and USA scoring highest. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation in methodological quality and evidence used for recommendations suggests that there is a need for an agreed international guideline. This will enable healthcare practitioners to follow the same recommendations, with the most recent evidence, and provide evidence-based care to all women globally.
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 | 0.015 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".