Babu and Magon uterine closure technique during cesarean section: A randomized double‐blind trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We compared the effectiveness of the Babu and Magon uterine closure technique and unlocked double-layer uterine closure on the integrity and thickness of the uterine scar. METHODS: A randomized double-blind trial was performed at Hazrat-e Rasoul -e-Akram Hospital, Tehran, Iran, from March 2018 to December 2019, in 72 pregnant women who were candidates for cesarean section for the first time. Women were randomly assigned to the Babu and Magon uterine closure technique (intervention group, n = 34) or double-layer closure of the uterine incision (control group, n = 38). The primary outcome of the study was the frequency of myometrial defects at the site of the scar (niche), and a large niche. Secondary outcomes, including the time taken for uterine closure and postpartum hemorrhage (early and late), were compared between groups. RESULTS: Adjacent myometrium thickness (AMT) between the two groups was not statistically significant. A niche was reported in 23.5% (8/34) and 50% (19/38) of women in the intervention and controls, respectively (p = 0.02). A large niche was reported in 2.9% (1/34) and 23.7% (9/38) of women in the intervention and controls, respectively (p < 0.01). The duration of uterine closure was not statistically significant between the two groups. Hemoglobin levels did not differ significantly between groups during the first 24 h post-surgery. CONCLUSION: The results of the study showed that the technique of uterine closure is one of the main potential determinants of myometrial healing. The Babu and Magon uterine closure technique seems to lead to tissue alignment during suturing and consequently cause better myometrial healing, although this issue calls for well-founded longer studies of appropriate design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".