Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26415952›Full record

ReviewBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

Is accurate and reliable blood loss estimation the 'crucial step' in early detection of postpartum haemorrhage: an integrative review of the literature.

Angela Hancock, Andrew D Weeks, Dame Tina Lavender

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04330742 (The Influence of Intravascular Fluid Administration on Aortic Velocity Time Integral in Obstetric Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section), which is not on this map. Cited by 70 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
20.1field-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.

NCT04330742 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

The Influence of Intravascular Fluid Administration on Aortic Velocity Time Integral in Obstetric Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section

TypeobservationalSponsorBaylor College of MedicineRan2020 to 2025Enrolled50ConditionsPregnancy Related, Hemorrhage, Fluid Overload, Labor ComplicationArmslactated ringers
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 182 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Methods for blood loss estimation after vaginal birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Angela HancockSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. angela.hancock@manchester.ac.uk.
Andrew D WeeksDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Liverpool Women's Hospital, University of Liverpool, Crown Street, Liverpool, L8 7SS, UK. aweeks@liverpool.ac.uk.
Dame Tina LavenderSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. tina.lavender@manchester.ac.uk.
University of Manchester · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2012-05-140Department of Health II-LA-0712-20007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality in low-income countries and severe maternal morbidity in many high-income countries. Poor outcomes following PPH are often attributed to delays in the recognition and treatment of PPH. Experts have suggested that improving the accuracy and reliability of blood loss estimation is the crucial step in preventing death and morbidity from PPH. However, there is little guidance on how this can be achieved. The aim of this integrative review was to evaluate the various methods of assessing maternal blood loss during childbirth.

methodsA systematic, integrative review of published research studies was conducted. All types of studies were included if they developed, tested, or aimed to improve methods and skills in quantifying blood loss during childbirth, or explored experiences of those involved in the process.

resultsThirty-six studies were included that evaluated the accuracy of visual estimation; tested methods to improve skills in measurement; examined their effect on PPH diagnosis and treatment, and / or explored additional factors associated with blood loss evaluation. The review found that health professionals were highly inaccurate at estimating blood loss as a volume. Training resulted in short term improvements in skills but these were not retained and did not improve clinical outcomes. Multi-faceted interventions changed some clinical practices but did not reduce the incidence of severe PPH or the timing of responses to excessive bleeding. Blood collection bags improved the accuracy of estimation but did not prevent delays or progression to severe PPH. Practitioners commonly used the nature and speed of blood flow, and the condition of the woman to indicate that the blood loss was abnormal.

conclusionsEarly diagnosis of PPH should improve maternal outcomes, but there is little evidence that this can be achieved through improving the accuracy of blood loss volume measurements. The diagnosis may rely on factors other than volume, such as speed of blood flow and nature of loss. A change in direction of future research is required to explore these in more detail.

Indexed as

Labor, ObstetricParturitionBlood Volume DeterminationEarly DiagnosisFemaleHumansPostpartum HemorrhagePregnancyReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26415952
PMCPMC4587838
OpenAlexW2149684129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.