ArticleBMJ open2025
Postpartum haemorrhage following vaginal delivery: a comprehensive analysis and development of predictive models for aetiological subgroups in Chinese women.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to dissect the aetiological subgroups of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) that occur after vaginal delivery in women with full-term singleton pregnancies. Our goal was to craft and validate predictive models to guide clinical decision-making and optimise resource allocation.
designA retrospective cohort study.
settingShengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Liaoning Maternal and Child Health Hospital, and Shenyang Women's and Children's Hospital.
participants29 842 women who underwent vaginal delivery were enrolled in the study across three hospitals from 2016 to 2022. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: PPH, categorised into uterine atony (UA), placental factors (PF), cervical trauma (CT), and coagulation abnormalities (CA) by aetiology.
resultsThe logistic regression for overall PPH and UA-PPH showcased high discrimination (AUCs of 0.807 and 0.794, respectively), coupled with commendable calibration and DCA-assessed clinical utility, culminating in the development of a nomogram for risk prediction. The PF-PPH model exhibited a modest AUC of 0.739, while the CT-PPH and CA-PPH models demonstrated suboptimal clinical utility and calibration.
conclusionThe study identified factors associated with PPH and developed models with good performance for overall PPH and UA-PPH. The nomogram offers a valuable tool for risk prediction. However, models for PF-PPH, CT-PPH, and CA-PPH require further refinement. Future research should focus on larger samples and multicentre validation for enhanced model generalisability.
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.