Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22325370›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2012

Amniotic fluid embolism incidence, risk factors and outcomes: a review and recommendations.

Marian Knight, Cynthia Berg, Peter Brocklehurst, Michael Kramer, Gwyneth Lewis, Jeremy Oats, Christine L Roberts, Catherine Spong, Elizabeth Sullivan, Jos van Roosmalen and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
23.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 164 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Extracorporeal Life Support in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Acute respiratory distress and amniotic fluid embolism in pregnancy.Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Marian KnightNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. marian.knight@npeu.ox.ac.uk
Cynthia Berg
Peter Brocklehurst
Michael Kramer
Gwyneth Lewis
Jeremy Oats
Christine L Roberts
Catherine Spong
Elizabeth Sullivan
Jos van Roosmalen
Joost Zwart
University of Oxford · GBLeiden University Medical Center · NLCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development · USMcGill University · CARoyal North Shore Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAmniotic fluid embolism (AFE) is a rare but severe complication of pregnancy. A recent systematic review highlighted apparent differences in the incidence, with studies estimating the incidence of AFE to be more than three times higher in North America than Europe. The aim of this study was to examine population-based regional or national data from five high-resource countries in order to investigate incidence, risk factors and outcomes of AFE and to investigate whether any variation identified could be ascribed to methodological differences between the studies.

methodsWe reviewed available data sources on the incidence of AFE in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the USA. Where information was available, the risk factors and outcomes of AFE were examined.

resultsThe reported incidence of AFE ranged from 1.9 cases per 100 000 maternities (UK) to 6.1 per 100 000 maternities (Australia). There was a clear distinction between rates estimated using different methodologies. The lowest estimated incidence rates were obtained through validated case identification (range 1.9-2.5 cases per 100 000 maternities); rates obtained from retrospective analysis of population discharge databases were significantly higher (range 5.5-6.1 per 100 000 admissions with delivery diagnosis). Older maternal age and induction of labour were consistently associated with AFE.

conclusionsRecommendation 1: Comparisons of AFE incidence estimates should be restricted to studies using similar methodology. The recommended approaches would be either population-based database studies using additional criteria to exclude false positive cases, or tailored data collection using existing specific population-based systems.Recommendation 2: Comparisons of AFE incidence between and within countries would be facilitated by development of an agreed case definition and an agreed set of criteria to minimise inclusion of false positive cases for database studies.Recommendation 3: Groups conducting detailed population-based studies on AFE should develop an agreed strategy to allow combined analysis of data obtained using consistent methodologies in order to identify potentially modifiable risk factors.Recommendation 4: Future specific studies on AFE should aim to collect information on management and longer-term outcomes for both mothers and infants in order to guide best practice, counselling and service planning.

Indexed as

Women's HealthAustraliaCesarean SectionEmbolism, Amniotic FluidEuropeFemaleHealth StatusHumansIncidencePregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomePremature Rupture of Fetal MembranesPrenatal CareRisk FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22325370
PMCPMC3305555
OpenAlexW2166536030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.