Carbetocin vs. oxytocin at elective caesarean delivery: a double‐blind, randomised, controlled, non‐inferiority trial of low‐ and high‐dose regimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbetocin or oxytocin are given routinely as first-line uterotonic drugs following delivery of the neonate during caesarean delivery to prevent postpartum haemorrhage. Low doses may be as effective as high doses with a potential reduction in adverse effects. In this double-blind, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we assigned low-risk patients undergoing elective caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia to one of four groups: carbetocin 20 μg; carbetocin 100 μg; oxytocin 0.5 IU bolus + infusion; and oxytocin 5 IU bolus + infusion. The study drug was given intravenously after delivery of the neonate. Uterine tone was assessed by the obstetrician 2, 5 and 10 minutes after study drug administration according to an 11-point verbal numerical rating scale (0 = atonic, 10 = excellent tone). The primary outcome measure was uterine tone 2 min after study drug administration. The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 1.2 points on the 11-point scale. Secondary outcomes included uterine tone after 5 and 10 minutes, use of additional uterotonics, blood loss and adverse effects. Data were available for 277 patients. Carbetocin 20 μg resulting in uterine tone of (median (IQR [range])) 8 (7-8 [1-10]) was non-inferior to carbetocin 100 μg with tone 8 (7-9 [3-10]), median (95%CI) difference 0 (-0.44-0.44). Similarly, oxytocin 0.5 IU with tone 7 (6-8 [3-10]) was non-inferior to oxytocin 5 IU with tone 8 (6-8 [2-10]), median (95%CI) difference 1 (0.11-1.89). Carbetocin 20 μg was also non-inferior to oxytocin 5 IU, and oxytocin 0.5 IU was non-inferior to carbetocin 100 μg. Uterine tone after 5 and 10 minutes, use of additional uterotonics, blood loss and adverse effects were similar in all groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".