MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387808264 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13802.1

Association between intrapartum fetal pulse oximetry and adverse perinatal and long-term outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2023· review· en· W4387808264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jill Mitchell, S. Walsh, Laura O'Byrne, Virginia Conrick, Ray Burke, Ali S. Khashan, John Higgins, Richard A. Greene, Gillian M. Maher, Fergus P. McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisObstetricsProtocol (science)Pulse oximetryAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Background:</ns7:bold> Current methods of intrapartum fetal monitoring based on heart rate, increase the rates of operative delivery but do not prevent or accurately detect fetal hypoxic brain injury. There is a need for more accurate methods of intrapartum fetal surveillance that will decrease the incidence of adverse perinatal and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes while maintaining the lowest possible rate of obstetric intervention. Fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) is a technology that may contribute to improved intrapartum fetal wellbeing evaluation by providing a non-invasive measurement of fetal oxygenation status. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Objective:</ns7:bold> This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesise the evidence examining the association between intrapartum fetal oxygen saturation levels and adverse perinatal and long-term outcomes in the offspring. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>Methods:</ns7:bold> We will include randomised control trials (RCTs), cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies which examine the use of FPO during labour as a means of measuring intrapartum fetal oxygen saturation and assess its effectiveness at detecting adverse perinatal and long-term outcomes compared to existing intrapartum surveillance methods. A detailed systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science will be conducted following a detailed search strategy until August 2023. Three authors will independently review titles, abstracts and full text of articles. Two reviewers will independently extract data using pre-defined data extraction and assess the quality using the Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. We will use random-effects meta-analysis for each exposure-outcome association to calculate pooled estimates using the generic variance method. This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. </ns7:p> <ns7:p> <ns7:bold>PROSPERO registration:</ns7:bold> CRD42023457368 (04/09/2023) </ns7:p>

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207