MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215022682 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004627

Obstetric Complications in Women With Congenital Uterine Anomalies According to the 2013 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy Classification

2021· review· en· W3215022682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michail Panagiotopoulos, Paraskevi Tseke, Lina Michala

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGynecological conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlacenta previaObstetricsOdds ratioPlacental abruptionGynecologyPregnancyMeta-analysisFetusPlacentaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk for obstetric complications in women with congenital uterine anomalies and the risk in each main class of uterine anomaly (U2 [septate], U3 [bicorporeal], U4 [hemi-uterus]), based on the 2013 classification by the ESHRE (European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology) and the ESGE (European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception until January 2021. The reference list of all included articles and previous systematic reviews were also screened to identify potential additional articles. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Comparative and noncomparative studies that investigated the obstetric outcomes of women with any type of known congenital uterine anomaly were considered eligible for inclusion. Screening and eligibility assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included. The quality of included comparative studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Odds ratios (ORs), pooled proportions of each obstetric outcome, and 95% CIs were calculated in RevMan and Stata accordingly, using random effects models. Congenital uterine anomalies were associated with increased risk of preterm birth (OR 3.89, 95% CI 3.11-4.88); cervical insufficiency (OR 15.13, 95% CI 11.74-19.50); prelabor rupture of membranes (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.38-4.48); fetal malpresentation (OR 11.11, 95% CI 5.74-21.49); fetal growth restriction (OR 3.75, 95% CI 1.88-7.46); placental abruption (OR 5.21, 95% CI 3.34-8.13); placenta previa (OR 4.00, 95% CI 1.87-8.56); placental retention (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.16-2.52); and cesarean birth (OR 4.52, 95% CI 2.19-9.31); when compared with those without anomalies. Pooled estimated risks were 25% for preterm birth, 40% for fetal malpresentation, 64% for cesarean birth, 12% for prelabor rupture of membranes, 15% for fetal growth restriction, 4% for placental abruption, 5% for preeclampsia, 13% for cervical insufficiency, and 2% for placenta previa. Classes U2 (septate), U3 (bicorporeal), and U4 (hemi-uterus) were also associated independently with preterm birth, fetal malpresentation, cesarean birth, and placental abruption. CONCLUSION: Congenital uterine anomalies are associated with obstetric complications across all examined ESHRE and ESGE classifications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021244487.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicGynecological conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207