Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38435415›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024

Severe postpartum hemorrhage and the risk of adverse maternal outcome: A comparative analysis of two population-based studies in France and the Netherlands.

P L M de Vries, C Deneux-Tharaux, C Caram-Deelder, F Goffinet, D D C A Henriquez, A Seco, J G van der Bom, T van den Akker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

P L M de VriesDepartment of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
C Deneux-TharauxUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, Obstetrical, Perinatal and Paediatric Epidemiology Research Team (Epopé), CRESS UMR 1153, Paris, France.
C Caram-DeelderDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
F GoffinetPort-Royal Maternity Unit, Cochin Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
D D C A HenriquezDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
A SecoClinical Research Unit Necker Cochin, APHP, Paris, France.
J G van der BomDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
T van den AkkerDepartment of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCentre de Recherche Épidémiologie et StatistiqueUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Among women with severe PPH (sPPH) in France and the Netherlands, we compared incidence of adverse maternal outcome (major obstetric hemorrhage (≥2.5L blood loss) and/or hysterectomy and/or mortality) by mode of delivery. Second, we compared use and timing of resuscitation and transfusion management, second-line uterotonics and uterine-sparing interventions (intra-uterine tamponade, compression sutures, vascular ligation, arterial embolization) by mode of delivery. Methods: Secondary analysis of two population-based studies of women with sPPH in France and the Netherlands. Women were selected by a harmonized definition for sPPH: (total blood loss ≥ 1500 ml) AND (blood transfusion of ≥ 4 units packed red blood cells and/or multicomponent blood transfusion). Findings: Incidence of adverse maternal outcome after vaginal birth was 793/1002, 9.1 % in the Netherlands versus 88/214, 41.1 % in France and 259/342, 76.2% versus 160/270, 59.3% after cesarean. Hemostatic agents such as fibrinogen were administered less frequently (p < 0.001) in the Netherlands (vaginal birth: 83/1002, 8.3% versus 105/2014, 49.5% in France; cesarean: 47/342, 13.7% and 152/270, 55.6%). Second-line uterotonics were started significantly later after PPH-onset in the Netherlands than France (vaginal birth: 46 versus 25 min; cesarean: 45 versus 18 min). Uterine-sparing interventions were less frequently (p < 0.001) applied in the Netherlands after vaginal birth (394/1002,39.3 %, 134/214, 62.6%) and cesarean (133/342, 38.9 % and 155/270, 57.4%) Interpretation: Incidence of adverse maternal outcome was higher among women with sPPH in the Netherlands than France regardless mode of birth. Possible explanatory mechanisms are earlier and more frequent use of second-line uterotonics and uterine-sparing interventions in France compared to the Netherlands.

Indexed as

Clinical careCross-country studiesManagementMaternal morbidityMaternal mortalityObstetric hemorrhageSevere maternal outcome

Identifiers

PMID38435415
PMCPMC10907197
OpenAlexW4392121842

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.