MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412727911 · doi:10.3390/jcm14145113

Clinical Scores of Peripartum Patients Admitted to Maternity Wards Compared to the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4412727911 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Walker, Natalie Jackson, Sudha Ramakrishnan, Claire Perry, Anandita Gaur, Anna Shaw, Saad Pirzada, Quincy Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyMEDLINEMeta-analysisIntensive care unitEmergency medicineSOFA scorePediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Hospitalized peripartum patients who later decompensate and require an upgrade to the intensive care unit (ICU) may have an increased risk for poor outcomes. Most of the literature regarding the need for ICU involves Modified Early Warning Scores in already hospitalized patients or the evaluation of specific comorbid conditions or diagnoses. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the differences in clinical scores at admission among adult peripartum patients to identify the later need for ICU. Methods: We systematically searched Ovid-Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar for randomized and observational studies of adult patients ≥18 years of age who were ≥20 weeks pregnant or up to 40 days post-partum, were admitted to the wards from the emergency department and later required critical care services. The primary outcome was the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Secondary outcomes included other clinical scores, the hospital length of stay (HLOS) and mortality. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was utilized to grade quality. Descriptive analyses were performed to report demographic data, with means (±standard deviation [SD]) for continuous data and percentages for categorical data. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes when at least two studies reported a common outcome. Results: Seven studies met the criteria, with a total of 1813 peripartum patients. The mean age was 27.2 (±2.36). Patients with ICU upgrades were associated with larger differences in mean SOFA scores. The pooled difference in means was 2.76 (95% CI 1.07–4.46, p < 0.001). There were statistically significant increases in Sepsis in Obstetrics Scores, APACHE II scores, and HLOS in ICU upgrade patients. There was a non-significantly increased risk of mortality in ICU upgrade patients. There was high overall heterogeneity between patient characteristics and management in our included studies. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated higher SOFA or other physiologic scores in ICU upgrade patients compared to those who remained on the wards. ICU upgrade patients were also associated with a longer HLOS and higher mortality compared with control patients.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.035
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine→Same topicMaternal and fetal healthcare→French-language works237,207→