Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32054453›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) rates in randomized trials of PPH prophylactic interventions and the effect of underlying participant PPH risk: a meta-analysis.

Lydia Hawker, Andrew Weeks

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Postpartum hemorrhage in electronic health records: risk factors at admission and in-hospital occurrence.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Article
  4. Factors Affecting the Risk of Postpartum Hemorrhage in Pregnant Women in Tibet Health Facilities.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lydia HawkerSanyu Research Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. l.a.hawker@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7053-6754
Andrew WeeksSanyu Research Unit, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Department of Health 16/16/06Department of Health HTA/16/16/06Department of Health II-LA-0712-20007Department of Health II-LA-0715-20008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) remains a leading cause of maternal mortality. Many trials assessing interventions to prevent PPH base their data on low risk women. It is important to consider the impact data collection methods may have on these results. This review aims to assess trials of PPH prophylaxis by grading trials according to the degree of risk status of the population enrolled in these trials and identify differences in the PPH rates of low risk and high risk populations.

methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Trials were identified through CENTRAL. Trials were assessed for eligibility then graded according to antenatal risk factors and method of birth into five grades. The main outcomes were overall trial rate of minor PPH (blood loss ≥500 ml) and major PPH (> 1000 ml) and method of determining blood loss (estimated/measured).

resultsThere was no relationship between minor or major PPH rate and risk grade (Kruskal-Wallis: minor - T = 0.92, p = 0.82; major - T = 0.91, p = 0.92). There was no difference in minor or major PPH rates when comparing estimation or measurement methods (Mann-Whitney: minor - U = 67, p = 0.75; major - U = 35, p = 0.72). There was however a correlation between % operative births and minor PPH rate, but not major PPH (Spearman r = 0.32 v. Spearman r = 0.098).

conclusionsUsing data from trials using low risk women to generalise best practice guidelines might not be appropriate for all births, particularly complex births. Although complex births contribute disproportionately to PPH rates, this review showed they are often underrepresented in trials. Despite this, there was no difference in reported PPH rates between studies conducted in high and low risk groups. Method of birth was shown to be an important risk factor for minor PPH and may be a better predictor of PPH than antenatal risk factors. Women with operative births are often excluded from trials meaning a lack of data supporting interventions in these women. More focus on complex births is needed to ensure the evidence base is relevant to the target population.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicFemaleHumansPostpartum HemorrhagePractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancyRiskSelection BiasPopulation riskPostpartum haemorrhagePPH preventionPPH prophylaxisPPH risk

Identifiers

PMID32054453
PMCPMC7020586
OpenAlexW3012565645

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.