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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.000

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 head0.071
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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