ReviewObstetric medicine2014
Amniotic fluid embolism: the known and not known.
Review in Obstetric medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nontrombotic Pulmonary Embolism: Different Etiology, Same Significant Consequences.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Maternal collapse: Challenging the four-minute rule.EBioMedicine · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amniotic fluid embolism was first recognized in 1926, in a Brazilian journal case report, on the basis of large amounts of fetal material in the maternal pulmonary vasculature at autopsy. The first English language description appeared in 1941 and consisted of eight parturients dying suddenly in which, once again, fetal material was seen in the pulmonary vasculature. A control group of 34 pregnant women dying of other recognized causes did not have fetal material in their lungs. The incidence of recognized, serious illness is on the order of two to eight per 100,000, with a mortality rate ranging from 13% to 35%. The diagnosis rests largely on one or more of four clinical signs: circulatory collapse, respiratory distress, coagulopathy, and seizures/ coma. The only confirmatory laboratory test remains autopsy findings although serum tests for fetal antigen, insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1, and complement are currently being investigated. One of the paradoxes of diagnosis is that fetal material in the pulmonary circulation at autopsy is specific for amniotic fluid embolism, while the same finding in the living is not. The mechanism of disease remains uncertain although the best available evidence suggests that complement activation might have a role. In contrast, mast cell degranulation probably is not a mechanism, so amniotic fluid embolism is not an anaphylaxis or anaphylactoid reaction as has been occasionally suggested. Perhaps the greatest unknown is not why 1 in 50,000 pregnant women develop what appears to be an immune response to their fetus, but rather why the other 49,999 do not?
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.