MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intrapartum antibiotics for known maternal Group B streptococcal colonization

2014· article· en· W4293362871 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGroup BIncidence (geometry)Relative riskChildbirthStreptococcusAntibiotic prophylaxisPregnancyRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalAntibioticsStreptococcus agalactiaeObstetricsNeonatal infectionPediatricsInternal medicineMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Maternal colonization with group B streptococcus (GBS) during pregnancy increases the risk of neonatal infection by vertical transmission. Administration of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) during labor has been associated with a reduction in early onset GBS disease (EOGBSD). However, treating all colonized women during labor exposes a large number of women and infants to possible adverse effects without benefit. Objectives To assess the effect of intrapartum antibiotics for maternal Group B haemolytic streptococci (GBS) colonization on mortality from any cause, from GBS infection and from organisms other than GBS. Search methods We updated the search of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register on 11 March 2014. Selection criteria Randomized trials assessing the impact of maternal IAP on neonatal GBS infections were included. Data collection and analysis We independently assessed eligibility and quality of the studies. Main results We did not identify any new trials from the updated search so the results remain unchanged as follows. We included four trials involving 852 women. Three trials (involving 500 women) evaluating the effects of IAP versus no treatment were included. The use of IAP did not significantly reduce the incidence of all cause mortality, mortality from GBS infection or from infections caused by bacteria other than GBS. The incidence of early GBS infection was reduced with IAP compared to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.74, three trials, 488 infants; risk difference ‐0.04, 95% CI ‐0.07 to ‐0.01; number needed to treat to benefit 25, 95% CI 14 to 100, I² 0%). The incidence of LOD or sepsis from organisms other than GBS and puerperal infection was not significantly different between groups. One trial (involving 352 women) compared intrapartum ampicillin versus penicillin and reported no significant difference in neonatal or maternal outcomes. We found a high risk of bias for one or more key domains in the study methodology and execution. Authors' conclusions Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis appeared to reduce EOGBSD, but this result may well be due to bias as we found a high risk of bias for one or more key domains in the study methodology and execution. There is lack of evidence from well designed and conducted trials to recommend IAP to reduce neonatal EOGBSD. Ideally the effectiveness of IAP to reduce neonatal GBS infections should be studied in adequately sized double‐blind controlled trials. The opportunity to conduct such trials has likely been lost, as practice guidelines (albeit without good evidence) have been introduced in many jurisdictions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.290 · 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