Association between tampons and toxic shock syndrome in menstruating women: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine the association between tampons and toxic shock syndrome (TSS) in menstruating women. Materials and methods We found only case and control Studies. We conducted a search strategy on each of the following databases: MEDLINE through Ovid, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register Center (CENTRAL), and LILACS. Then, we extracted data and assessed the risk of bias by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We also performed a meta-analysis of the included studies. Results Of 90 studies evaluated, after debugging the information, six studies were selected, which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Findings in the meta-analysis show that the global estimate of the OR = 19.60; (95% CI: 8.31–46.24) indicates a conclusive significant effect in using tampons as a risk factor in TSS. The study presented a low level of heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%). Also, all studies showed a score greater than three, representing a low risk of bias. Conclusion Tampons use is considered a risk factor for Toxic Shock Syndrome.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".