RETRACTED: Risk factors related to surgical wound infection after caesarean section: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the common postoperative complications after caesarean section for pregnant women. Previous studies have investigated the risk factors for SSI in pregnant women undergoing caesarean delivery. Whereas big differences in research results exist, and the correlation coefficients of different research results are quite different. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine the risk factors related to SSI in pregnant women undergoing caesarean delivery. We searched English databases to collect case-control studies or cohort studies published between 1 January 2015 and 15 November 2023, including PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed via Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 tool. A total of 24 articles (n = 581, 895) were selected in this meta-analysis. The following risk factors were presented to be significantly correlated with SSI in pregnant women following caesarean delivery: smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 1.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.31, 2.04]), previous caesarean section (OR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.18, 1.82]), multiple vaginal examinations (OR = 2.92, 95% CI [1.91, 4.46]), membrane rupture (OR = 1.68, 95% CI [1.19, 2.38]), hypertensive disorders (OR = 1.85, 95% CI [1.33, 2.57]), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.36, 95% CI [1.18, 1.57]), high body mass index (OR = 1.57, 95% CI [1.35, 1.84]). Occurrence of SSI is influenced by a variety of factors. Thus, we should pay close attention to high-risk subjects and take crucial targeted interventions to lower the SSI risk after caesarean section. Owing to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more rigorous studies with adequate sample sizes are needed to verify the conclusion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".