MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127523321 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004288

Prophylactic Administration of Uterotonics to Prevent Postpartum Hemorrhage in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery for Arrest of Labor

2021· article· en· W3127523321 on OpenAlexaff
Mrinalini Balki, Kristi Downey, Andrew Walker, Gareth Seaward, José C. A. Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemCanadian Anesthesiologists' SocietyLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxytocinErgonovineMedicineUterine atonyAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialUterotonicMisoprostolObstetricsPregnancyInternal medicineHysterectomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether prophylactic administration of oxytocin plus ergonovine or oxytocin plus carboprost is more effective than oxytocin alone in reducing the need for additional uterotonics among women undergoing cesarean delivery for labor arrest. METHODS: In this double-blind, three-arm randomized controlled trial, participants were assigned to receive either oxytocin 5 units intravenous alone, or with ergonovine 0.25 mg intravenous or carboprost 0.25 mg intramuscular immediately after delivery, followed with maintenance infusion of oxytocin 40 milliunits/minute in all groups. Uterine tone was assessed at 3, 5, and 10 minutes after delivery, and additional uterotonics were administered if deemed necessary. The primary outcome was intraoperative need for additional uterotonics. Secondary outcomes included uterine tone, calculated blood loss, and side effects. A sample size of 34 per group (n=102), based on the null hypothesis that there is no association between treatment assignment and the need for additional uterotonics, permitted independent post hoc pairwise comparisons between oxytocin plus ergonovine, oxytocin plus carboprost, and oxytocin alone using an adjusted P-value of .025. The association between the need for additional uterotonics and treatment group was assessed using the χ2 test. RESULTS: From June 2013 through July 2019, 105 participants were randomized (35 per group) and data from 100 participants were analyzed: oxytocin (n=35), oxytocin plus ergonovine (n=33), and oxytocin plus carboprost (n=32). There was no difference in the requirement of additional intraoperative uterotonics across groups (oxytocin [37%] vs oxytocin plus ergonovine [33%] vs oxytocin plus carboprost [34%], P=.932). Uterine tone and calculated blood loss were similar across groups. Incidence of nausea or vomiting was higher in oxytocin plus ergonovine (85%; odds ratio [OR] 5.3, 95% CI 1.7-16.9, P=.003) and oxytocin plus carboprost (72%; OR 2.4, 95% CI 0.9-6.7, P=.086) compared with the oxytocin (51%) group. CONCLUSION: Compared with oxytocin alone, prophylactic use of a combination of uterotonic drugs did not reduce the need for additional uterotonics at cesarean delivery for labor arrest. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01869556.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207