Trial reportObstetrics and gynecology2010
Interpretation of amniotic fluid white blood cell count in "bloody tap" amniocenteses in women with symptoms of preterm labor.
Trial report in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antenatal N-acetylcysteine to improve outcomes of premature infants with intra-amniotic infection and inflammation (Triple I): randomized clinical trial.Pediatric research · 2021Trial
- The Inflammatory Milieu of Amniotic Fluid Increases with Chorio-Deciduitis Grade in Inflammation-Restricted to Choriodecidua, but Not Amnionitis, of Extra-Placental Membranes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation and Management of Women and Newborns With a Maternal Diagnosis of Chorioamnionitis: Summary of a Workshop.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2016Article
- Article
- Advances in medical diagnosis of intra-amniotic infection.Expert opinion on medical diagnostics · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate whether blood-contaminated amniotic fluid affects the performance of white blood cell (WBC) count in diagnosing intraamniotic inflammation and infection.
methodsThree hundred fifty-seven consecutive women pregnant with singletons undergoing amniocentesis to rule out infection were enrolled prospectively. A "bloody tap" was defined as a red blood cell (RBC) count of 1,000 cells/mm or more. Proteomics analysis of amniotic fluid was used in this study as the standard for diagnosing inflammation. Infection was confirmed by positive amniotic fluid culture. An amniotic fluid WBC count correction formula was computed using maternal WBC count, hematocrit, and mean corpuscular volume.
resultsThe prevalence of a bloody tap amniocentesis was 22% (77 of 357). In the absence of inflammation, the amniotic fluid WBC count was significantly higher in bloody tap (median [interquartile range] 18 [9-58] cells/mm) compared with non-bloody tap specimens (4 [1-10] cells/mm; P<.001). The correction formula reversed this difference to a nonsignificant level (bloody tap 0 [0-17] compared with non-bloody tap 3 [1-10] cells/mm; P=.273). In the setting of inflammation, the observed WBC count of bloody tap samples (778 [197-2,062 cells/mm]) was significantly elevated compared with that of the non-bloody tap specimens (616 [105-1,730] cells/mm; P=.023). Correction of the WBC count in bloody tap amniocenteses improved the test accuracy and positive likelihood ratios for inflammation and infection. A correction algorithm was not useful in amniotic fluid specimens with less than 1,000/RBCs/mm or WBC counts more than 1,100 cells/mm. Given the nonlinear relationship between amniotic fluid WBC and RBC, for a rapid correction of WBC count, the number of neutrophils that need to be subtracted from the observed WBC count is variable.
conclusionIn the setting of an amniotic fluid sample contaminated with 1,000 RBCs/mm or more, WBC count is a less accurate indicator of inflammation and infection. In such samples, correction of WBC count enhances diagnostic performance for inflammation and infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.