Presence of the partner in the operating room during emergency caesarean section
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".