MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386424425 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2023.08.033

Operative delivery in the second stage of labor and preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4386424425 on OpenAlexaff
Abirami Kirubarajan, Nila Thangavelu, Misgav Rottenstreich, Giulia M. Muraca

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisPregnancyObstetricsPreterm deliverySystematic reviewStage (stratigraphy)MEDLINEFetusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify the association between mode of operative delivery in the second stage of labor (cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery) and spontaneous preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, EmCare, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science: Core Collection, and Scopus were searched from database inception to April 1, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All retrospective cohort studies with participants who had a second-stage cesarean delivery (defined as intrapartum cesarean delivery at full cervical dilation) or operative vaginal delivery (including forceps- and/or vacuum-assisted delivery) and that reported the rate of preterm birth (either spontaneous or not specified) in subsequent pregnancy were included. METHODS: Both a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis were performed. A meta-analysis was performed for dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model and used the odds ratio as an effect measure with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's 2022 Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposure tool. RESULTS: After screening 2671 articles from 7 databases, a total of 18 retrospective cohort studies encompassing 605,138 patients were included. The pooled rates of spontaneous preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy were 6.9% (12 studies) after second-stage cesarean delivery and 2.6% (8 studies) after operative vaginal delivery. A total of 7 studies encompassing 75,460 patients compared the primary outcome of spontaneous preterm birth after second-stage cesarean delivery vs operative vaginal delivery in an index pregnancy with an odds ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.57-2.58) in favor of operative vaginal delivery. However, most studies did not include important confounding factors, did not address exposure misclassification because of failed operative vaginal delivery, and considered operative vaginal delivery as a homogeneous category with no distinction between forceps- and vacuum-assisted deliveries. CONCLUSION: Although a synthesis of the existing literature suggests that the risk of spontaneous preterm birth is higher in those with a previous second-stage cesarean delivery than in those with operative vaginal delivery, the risk of bias in these studies is very high. Findings should be interpreted with caution.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.044
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207