Outcome reporting in studies on critically ill obstetric patients: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This systematic review is the first step in the process of standardizing outcome reporting through the development of a core outcome set for research on critically ill obstetric patients (COSCO). Methods A five-database search was performed to identify randomized and non-randomized studies published before November 2017, on patients admitted to intensive care or high-dependency units during or immediately after pregnancy. Reported outcomes were categorized into domains and definitions were documented. Results Of the 12,581 citations reviewed, 136 studies were included. The most reported outcome domains were maternal all-cause mortality ( n = 128, 94.5%), resource use ( n = 116, 85.6%), and clinical/physiological outcomes ( n = 111, 82.8%). Outcomes related to functioning/life impact and adverse effects of treatment were only reported in four (2.9%) studies. There was inconsistency in outcome definitions. Conclusions This review identified considerable variation in outcome reporting and definitions and generated an outcome list to consider in COSCO development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.788 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".