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.
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.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- From Adaptive Resilience to Catastrophic Systems Collapse: Endothelial Entropy, Ferroptotic Propagation, and the Maternal Point of No Return in Emergency Peripartum Hysterectomy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Von Willebrand disease (VWD) and pregnancy: a comprehensive overview.Thrombosis journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.