ArticleJournal of anesthesia2024
Quantitative and calculated estimated blood loss in cesarean deliveries for twin and singleton pregnancies: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 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.
- Differential effects of propofol and dexmedetomidine on explicit and implicit memory after sedation: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Intramuscular methylergonovine to decrease blood loss during cesarean delivery for twins: A triple-blinded placebo-controlled randomized trial.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study retrospectively assessed blood loss during cesarean deliveries for twin and singleton pregnancies using two distinct methods, quantitative estimation measured during cesarean sections and hematocrit-based calculated estimation.
methodsWe included scheduled cesarean deliveries for twin or singleton pregnancies at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation. Quantitative blood loss was recorded based on the blood volume in the graduated collector bottle and by weighing the blood-soaked textiles during cesarean sections. The blood loss was calculated using the change in hematocrit levels before and after the cesarean delivery.
resultsWe evaluated 403 cases including 44 twins and 359 singletons. Quantitative blood loss during cesarean section was significantly higher in twin pregnancies than that in singleton pregnancies (1117 [440] vs 698 [378] mL; p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were observed in the calculated blood loss between the two groups on the day after delivery (487 mL [692 mL] vs 507 mL [522 mL]; p = 0.861). On post-delivery days 4-5, twin pregnancies were associated with a significantly higher calculated blood loss than singleton pregnancies (725 [868] mL vs 444 [565] mL, p = 0.041). Although a significant moderate correlation between quantitative and calculated blood loss was observed in singleton pregnancies (r = 0.473, p < 0.001), no significant correlation was observed between twin pregnancies (r = 0.053, p = 0.735).
conclusionQuantitative blood loss measurements during cesarean section may be clinically insufficient in twin pregnancies. Incorporating blood tests and continuous assessments are warranted for enhanced blood loss evaluation, especially in twin pregnancies, owing to the risk of persistent bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38963564What 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.