MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Different Delivery Modalities of Epidural Analgesia and Intravenous Analgesia in Labor: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4389075320 on OpenAlexaff
S. Wydall, D. Zolger, Adetokunbo Owolabi, Bernadette Nzekwu, Desire N. Onwochei, Neel Desai

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Anesthesia Digest · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaBolus (digestion)Combined spinal epiduralModalitiesIntravenous bolusContinuous infusionCesarean deliveryPregnancySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

( Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth. 2023;70:406–442) There is still no preferred method of delivering neuraxial analgesia to pregnant patients. There are options such as continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and intermittent epidural bolus which can be controlled by a machine (programmed intermittent epidural bolus—PIEB), demand from an anesthesia provider (demand intermittent epidural bolus—DIEB), or the patient themselves (patient-controlled epidural analgesia—PCEA). The use of opioids for labor analgesia is also common in those who cannot receive spinal analgesia. This study aimed to compare the relationship between different analgesia delivery methods on maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designSystematic review
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 venueObstetric Anesthesia DigestSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207