MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049381385 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038309

Breast feeding after caesarean delivery on maternal request: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3049381385 on OpenAlexafffund
Wei Mu, Yu Huang, Andréanne Chaumont, Isabelle Létourneau, Darine El‐Chaâr, Tian Xia, Shi Wu Wen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreastfeeding Practices and Influences
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCaesarean sectionVaginal deliveryProtocol (science)MEDLINECochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewCohort studyBreast feedingObstetricsPregnancyFamily medicinePediatricsAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Caesarean delivery under maternal request (CDMR) is a major factor contributing to the rising global rates of caesarean section (CS) procedure. The choice of CDMR without medical indications could provide a sense of assured safety by avoiding the experiences and complications of vaginal birth, and the risks related to an emergency CS. However, it might adversely influence women's breast feeding patterns and produce a long-lasting impact on maternal and neonatal health. This study aims to systematically review the current evidence relating to the effects of intentions of performing CDMR on breast feeding. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive literature search will be performed in three English-language electronic databases, major clinical study registries and other sources for original studies reporting the breast feeding outcomes after a planned CDMR or vaginal delivery. The three databases Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched via Ovid from inception to February 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), pseudo-RCTs, cohort studies and case-control studies on this topic will be included. Participants in the experimental or case group should meet the Robson criteria of classes 2B or 4B and have experienced planned CS undertaken for no maternal or foetal indication, whereas participants in the control group have undergone scheduled vaginal delivery. All kinds of breast feeding outcomes will be included. Meta-analyses will be attempted to provide an estimate of the pooled effect and will be stratified by different study designs. A qualitative description will be provided if quantitative synthesis proves to be fruitless. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a secondary literature review that does not need ethical approval. No primary data will be collected from the participants. Findings of this study will be presented at scientific conferences and be published in scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020160303.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.026
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.005

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207