MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389778852 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000001223

Prevention of Early-Onset Neonatal Group B Streptococcal Disease: A Comprehensive Review of Major Guidelines

2023· review· en· W4389778852 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eirini Boureka, Dimitrios Krasias, Ιoannis Tsakiridis, Anna-Maria Karathanasi, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Apostolos Athanasiadis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChorioamnionitisGroup BNeonatal infectionPregnancyDiseaseObstetricsPediatricsRupture of membranesIntensive care medicineGestationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Importance Group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonization during pregnancy is associated with significant neonatal morbidity and mortality and represents a major public health concern, often associated with poor screening and management. Objective The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published influential guidelines on the screening and management of this clinical entity during antenatal and intrapartum periods. Evidence Acquisition A descriptive review of guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada on the prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal disease was carried out. Results There is a consensus among the reviewed guidelines regarding the optimal screening specimen type, indications for intrapartum antibiotic administration such as bacteriuria during pregnancy, clinical signs of chorioamnionitis or maternal pyrexia, and history of GBS-related neonatal disease. There is also agreement on several conditions where no intervention is recommended, that is, antepartum treatment of GBS and GBS-positive women with planned cesarean delivery and intact membranes. Controversy exists regarding the optimal screening time, with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stating against routine screening and on management strategies related to preterm labor and preterm prelabor rupture of membranes. Conclusions The development of consistent international practice protocols for the timely screening of GBS and effective management of this clinical entity both during pregnancy and the intrapartum period seems of paramount importance to safely guide clinical practice and subsequently improve neonatal outcomes. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians Learning Objectives After participating in this activity, the learner should be better able to explain the aim of screening for group B streptococcal infection in pregnancy; identify cases that should be treated for group B streptococcal infection; and discuss appropriate intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for pregnant women positive for GBS.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207