Association between intrapartum fetal pulse oximetry and adverse perinatal and long-term outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: 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. Objective: 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. Methods: 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, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.Gov and WHO ICTRP will be conducted following a detailed search strategy until February 2024. Three authors will independently review titles, abstracts and full text of articles. Two reviewers will independently extract data using a pre-defined data extraction form and assess the quality of included studies using the Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. 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 and MOOSE guidelines. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023457368 (04/09/2023).
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 | 0.058 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.006 |
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".