MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6909193127 · doi:10.34944/dspace/9893

Peripartum care of persons with obesity: a scoping review of recommendations and practical tools for implementation

2022· other· en· W6909193127 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTUScholarShare (Temple University) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistCaesarean sectionInclusion (mineral)MEDLINESystematic reviewCaesarean deliveryReferralPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Despite the growing prevalence of obesity among reproductive aged persons in the USA, evidence-based guidelines for peripartum care are lacking. The objective of this scoping review is to identify obesity-related recommendations for peripartum care, evaluate grades of evidence for each recommendation, and identify practical tools (eg, checklists, toolkits, care pathways and bundles) to support their implementation in clinical practice. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2020 for eligible studies addressing peripartum care in persons with obesity. Study eligibility criteria: Inclusion criteria were published evidence-rated recommendations and practical tools for peripartum care of persons with obesity. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Pairs of independent reviewers extracted data (source, publication year, content and number of recommendations, level and grade of evidence, description of tool) and identified similarities and differences among the articles. Results: Of 18,315 screened articles, 18 were included including 7 articles with evidence-rated recommendations and 11 practical tools (3 checklists, 3 guidelines, 1 care bundle, 1 flowchart, 1 care pathway, 1 care map and 1 protocol). Thirteen of 39 evidence-rated recommendations were based on expert opinion. Recommendations related to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and subcutaneous tissue closure at caesarean delivery received the highest grade of evidence. Some of the practical tools included a checklist from the USA regarding anticoagulation after caesarean delivery (evidence-supported recommendation), a bundle for surgical site infections after caesarean delivery in Australia (evidence did not support recommendation) and a checklist with content for several aspects of peripartum care from Canada (evidence supported seven of nine definitive recommendations). Conclusion: The recommendations for peripartum care for persons with obesity are based on limited evidence and few practical tools for implementation exist. Future work should focus on developing practical tools based on high-quality studies.

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)0.112
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.326
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1120.326
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0250.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTUScholarShare (Temple University)French-language works237,207