Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Routine use of caesarean section for breech presentation is widespread. However poor outcomes after breech birth may be the result of underlying conditions causing breech presentation rather than damage during delivery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of planned caesarean section for breech presentation on measures of pregnancy outcome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth trials register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials register. Date of last search: October 1997. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing planned caesarean section for breech presentation with planned vaginal delivery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers assessed trial eligibility and quality. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies involving 313 women were included. Caesarean section was done in 93% (119/128) of women allocated to planned caesarean section and 54% (99/185) of women in the planned vaginal delivery groups. The policy of planned caesarean section was associated with significantly increased maternal morbidity (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.68) and reduced short term neonatal morbidity (relative risk 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.88). The studies were unable to detect differences in brachial plexus injuries, low Apgar scores or perinatal mortality. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to evaluate the use of a policy of planned caesarean section for breech presentation. A large Canadian trial addressing this question is currently underway.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".