Observational studyBMJ open2021
Incidence, trends and risk factors for obstetric massive blood transfusion in China from 2012 to 2019: an observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal and perinatal outcomes across China's one-child, two-child, and three-child policy periods: a retrospective cohort analysis of 43,439 deliveries.Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Associated Factors for Post-Caesarean Delivery Blood Transfusion in Eastern Sudan: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of blood medicine · 2022Article
- The Association Between Severity of Anemia During Pregnancy and Severe Maternal Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to use the high-quality national monitoring data from the China's National Maternal Near Miss Surveillance System (NMNMSS) to ascertain the incidence, trends and risk factors of obstetric massive blood transfusion (MBT) from 2012 to 2019 in China and determine its clinical outcomes. SETTINGS: Observational study of hospitalised pregnancies who had given birth or ended their pregnancy among member hospitals of NMNMSS.
participants11 667 406 women were included in this study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We screened for the incidence, trends, risk factors and main reasons for obstetric MBT, and the outcomes after obstetric MBT. MBT was defined as the transfusion of ≥5 units of red blood cells or ≥1000 mL of whole blood. The incidence of MBT was defined as the MBT cases per 10 000 pregnancies.
resultsObstetric MBT occurred in 27 626 cases, corresponding to an incidence of 23.68 per 10 000 maternities, which exhibited an increasing trend in China during 2012-2019 (14.03-29.59 per 10 000 maternities, p for trend <0.001). Obstetric MBT was mainly associated with amniotic fluid embolism, uterine atony, abnormal placenta, severe anaemia, ectopic pregnancy, abortion, caesarean section, advanced maternal age and multiparous from biological effect. While from sociological effects, uterine atony, severe anaemia and placenta previa are the top three complications which more likely to undergo obstetric MBT in the Chinese population. Overall, the secular trends of hysterectomy incidence (25.07%-9.92%) and MMR during hospitalisation (21.41‰-7.48‰) among women who underwent MBT showed decreasing trends (p for trend <0.001).
conclusionTo minimise the incidence of obstetric MBT, more attention should be paid to education on the importance of the antenatal visit, evidence-based transfusion practice and females who are multiparous and have an advanced age, amniotic fluid embolism, uterine atony, severe anaemia and placenta previa.
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.