OBSTETRICAL BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY: A NATIONAL CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The objective of this thesis is to establish an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the primary management of obstetrical brachial plexus injury (OBPI). Four gaps are identified for management of OBPI in Canada: 1) The historic poor use of evidence, 2) Timing of referral to multidisciplinary care, 3) Indications and timing of operative nerve repair, and 4) Distribution of expertise in Canada. Methods The guideline is intended for all providers delivering perinatal care, and all specialists delivering care to OBPI patients. The consensus group was composed of clinicians representing each of Canada’s ten multidisciplinary centres. An original systematic review comparing the effectiveness of primary operative versus nonoperative management, and a review of Canadian OBPI epidemiology were completed. Quality indicators for referral to a multidisciplinary centre were established. Recommendations were based on best evidence, and interpretation of this evidence by clinical experts. An electronic modified Delphi approach was used for consensus, with agreement criteria defined a priori following RAND procedures. Results Nerve repair reduces functional impairment in OBPI versus nonoperative management of similar patients, and modern microsurgery has low incidence of major adverse events. The quality of evidence was low. Residual impairment is underestimated and uncharacterized in nonoperative literature. OBPI incidence was at least 1.24 per 1000 births in Canada, and consistent over the study period. The strongest risk factors for OBPI were comorbid humerus fracture, shoulder dystocia and comorbid clavicle fracture. Most patients were not referred to a multidisciplinary centre. The guideline group approved seven recommendations. Discussion Recommendations address the identified gaps in care, and guide identification, referral, treatment and outcome assessment for OBPI. The process established a new network of opinion leaders and researchers for further guideline development, and multicentre research. The next step is to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations.
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 | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".