MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306175751 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000001761

Presence of the partner in the operating room during emergency caesarean section

2022· article· en· W4306175751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helene Korvenius Nedergaard, Thanikaivashan Balaganeshan, E.E. Weitling, Henriette S. Petersen, Anne Craveiro Brøchner

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSyddansk Universitet
KeywordsMedicineCaesarean sectionSection (typography)ObstetricsMedical emergencyEmergency medicinePregnancyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emergency caesarean sections are often very urgent, with limited time for informing and guiding parents. Is it preferable to leave the partner outside of the operating room, or let the partner accompany the mother? OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to provide an overview of the available evidence regarding the presence of the partner in the operating room during emergency caesarean sections. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All published literature reporting on emergency caesarean sections in regional or general anaesthesia with the partner present in the operating room were eligible, no matter the design. RESULTS: Twenty-four titles, published between 1984 and 2020, were included; 15 contained original clinical findings and 9 were letters/debates. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and found to be very low/low (17 studies), moderate (6) or good (1). Studies originated from Europe (16 studies), USA/Canada (4), South America (2), Asia (1) and Africa (1). Content data were thematically summarised and were overall either in favour or against having the partner present. Staff seemed reluctant to let partners be present for caesarean sections under general anaesthesia; mothers and partners preferred the partners' presence. Under regional anaesthesia, parents also wished for the partners' presence and described the caesarean section under regional anaesthesia as a predominantly positive experience. Most staff had a favourable attitude towards letting the partner be present for caesarean sections under regional anaesthesia. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence exists regarding the presence of the partner during emergency caesarean sections, but is of low quality. Most parents prefer having their partner present. Staff can be reluctant, especially when general anaesthesia is used.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207