ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2022
Midwives' ability during third stage of childbirth to estimate postpartum haemorrhage.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence, emerging aetiologies, and contemporary predictors of primary postpartum haemorrhage in a tertiary-level obstetric population in Nnewi, Nigeria: a pilot study.Kronika (Ljubljana, Slovenia) · 2025Article
- Roles and challenges encountered by midwives in the management of postpartum haemorrhage following normal vaginal delivery: A scoping review.Nursing open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Correctly assessing the amount of blood loss is crucial in order to adequately treat postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) at an early stage and diminish any related symptoms and/or complications.The aim of our study is to analyse correctness in visually estimated blood loss during labour and to measure the differences between subjectively measured and weighted blood losses (ml). Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: A Swedish maternity unit with 6000 annual births. Participants: Midwives employed at a big maternity unit at a hospital in northern Stockholm, Sweden. Intervention: Midwives assisting 192 vaginal births were asked to visually estimate the blood loss from the assisted delivery. Coasters and sanitary pads were weighed following the birth. We analysed if there were any differences between subjective measured blood loss (ml) and weighted blood loss. These two methods were also compared to quantify concordance between estimated blood volume and the actual volume. Findings: The number of overestimates of blood loss was 45.3 % ( Conclusion: There was both underestimation and overestimation of blood loss. We found small but significant overestimates in PPH < 300 ml (16 ml). In PPH > 300 ml, there was a small but not significant underestimates (34 ml). Based upon our findings, we conclude that it is reasonable to start weighing blood loss when it exceeds 300 ml.
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.