Trial reportPloS one2019
Shock index and heart rate standard reference values in the immediate postpartum period: A cohort study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of shock index for predicting severity of postpartum haemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Pregnancy and Postpartum Trends in Self-Measured Blood Pressure and Derived Indices: The BOSHI Study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2025Article
- Risk Factors for Postpartum Hemorrhage and its Severe Forms with Blood Loss Evaluated Objectively - A Prospective Cohort Study.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2021Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine Shock Index (SI) reference values in the first two hours of the postpartum period after objectively measuring postpartum bleeding. MATERIALS AND
methodsA complementary analysis using data from a prospective cohort study at Women's Hospital of the University of Campinas, Brazil, between 1 February 2015 and 31 March 2016. It included women giving birth vaginally unless they had one of these conditions: gestational age below 34 weeks, hypertension, hypo- or hyperthyroidism without treatment, any cardiac disease, infections with fever or sepsis, history of coagulopathy or delivery by C-section. Blood loss was measured by adding the blood volume collected in the drape placed under the women's buttocks and the weight of gauzes and compresses used (excluding the dry weight). Vital signs were measured every 5-15 min after delivery. Exploratory data analysis was performed to assess the mean, standard deviation, median, and percentiles (5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, 95th). To identify variation among the periods after delivery, the mean SI and heart rate (HR) values observed for the following intervals were used in the analysis: 0-20 min, 21-40 min, 41-60 min, 61-90 min and 91-120 min.
resultsOne hundred eighty-six women were included. The mean age ± SD was 24.9 ± 6.1 years and the mean gestational age at birth was 39.2 ± 1.8 weeks. At the puerperal period, the mean SI values ranged from 0.68 ± 0.14 to 0.74 ± 0.15. The percentile distribution ranged from 0.46 (5th percentile) to 1.05 (95th percentile). The mean HR values ranged from 80.8 ± 12.7 bpm to 92.3 ± 14.4 bpm. The percentile distribution ranged from 62.0 bpm (5th percentile) to 117 bpm (95th percentile).
conclusionReference ranges were established for SI and HR values which showed small variations throughout the postpartum period.
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.