Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39911088›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2025

Transfusion of blood and blood products for the management of postpartum haemorrhage.

Caitlin R Williams, Hanna E Huffstetler, Angelo S Nyamtema, Eva Larkai, Magdalena Lyimo, Afroditi Kanellopoulou, Lindsay Robertson, Leslie Choi, Fadhlun M Alwy Al-Beity

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2025. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

9 authors.

Caitlin R WilliamsUNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Hanna E HuffstetlerDepartment of Health Behaviour, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, USA.
Angelo S NyamtemaObstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Francis University College of Health and Allied Sciences, Ifakara, Tanzania.
Eva LarkaiIndependent Researcher, London, UK.
Magdalena LyimoHaematology/Blood Transfusion, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Afroditi KanellopoulouMethods Support Unit, Cochrane Central Executive Team, London, UK.
Lindsay RobertsonEvidence Production & Methods Directorate, Cochrane Central Executive Team, London, UK.
Leslie ChoiEvidence Production & Methods Directorate, Cochrane Central Executive Team, London, UK.
Fadhlun M Alwy Al-BeityObstetrics/Gynaecology, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationalePostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is commonly defined as blood loss of 500 mL or greater within 24 hours after birth. Intravenous transfusions of whole blood, red blood cells (RBC), or other blood components collected from a donor may be administered to manage PPH. Key questions remain regarding optimal timing for initiating blood and blood product transfusion in managing PPH and whether the use of fractionated blood products, either as replacement for or in addition to whole blood transfusion, could improve maternal outcomes. No systematic review has examined appropriate transfusion strategies for managing PPH.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of transfusion of whole blood or other blood products for preventing morbidity and mortality among women with PPH. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify studies for inclusion in the review. The latest search was 18 July 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, or controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating the efficacy and safety of blood transfusion for managing PPH, regardless of the mode of birth. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were maternal death, severe maternal morbidity, and adverse effects. RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias in included studies using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. SYNTHESIS

methodsWe synthesised results for each outcome within each comparison using meta-analysis where possible, and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 12 studies with 17,868 participants. We excluded five NRSIs from outcome analyses due to critical risk of bias related to confounding. SYNTHESIS OF

resultsOne threshold for initiating transfusion versus another threshold for initiating transfusion None of the studies assessed this comparison. One- to two-unit RBCs versus no transfusion Among women with moderate blood loss, low-certainty evidence from one NRSI found that transfusing 1 to 2 units of RBCs to treat PPH may increase severe maternal morbidity - composite excluding intensive care unit (ICU) admission (risk ratio (RR) 7.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.75 to 17.80; 2130 women) and severe maternal morbidity - ICU admission (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.75; 2130 women), though we have substantial concerns about the potential bias due to confounding as the volume of blood lost was not controlled for in the analysis. The study did not report maternal death or adverse effects. Packed RBCs versus whole blood versus combination of blood products One NRSI assessed this comparison but had critical risk of bias and was subsequently excluded from analysis. Fresh frozen plasma (FFP)/RBCs with fibrinogen concentrate versus FFP/RBCs alone One NRSI assessed this comparison but had critical risk of bias and was subsequently excluded from analysis. Fibrinogen concentrate versus placebo or no fibrinogen concentrate The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrinogen concentrate on maternal death (0 events; 2 studies, 674 women; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrinogen concentrate probably results in little to no difference in severe maternal morbidity - ICU admission (RR 1.09,0 95% CI 0.80 to 1.49; 2 studies, 485 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrinogen concentrate on severe maternal morbidity - arterial embolisation (1 study, 430 women; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT (430 women) and one NRSI (730 women) reported severe maternal morbidity - hysterectomy, each of which reported different directions of effect with low-certainty evidence. Fibrinogen concentrate may result in little to no difference in adverse effect - thromboembolic events (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.95; 2 studies, 674 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of fibrinogen concentrate on additional adverse effects, such as shivering or fever (1 study, 244 women; very low-certainty evidence). Cryoprecipitate versus no cryoprecipitate The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cryoprecipitate on maternal death. One RCT (0 deaths; 180 women; very low-certainty evidence) and one NRSI (0 deaths; 157 women; very low-certainty evidence) reported this outcomes. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effects of cryoprecipitate on severe maternal morbidity - ICU admission, severe maternal morbidity - any organ failure, severe maternal morbidity - laparotomy, or severe maternal morbidity - uterine artery embolisation (1 study, 180 women; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT (180 women; very low-certainty evidence) and one NRSI (157 women; very low-certainty evidence) reported severe maternal morbidity - hysterectomy and the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effects of cryoprecipitate on adverse effects, such as thromboembolic events or transfusion-related reactions (1 study, 180 women; very low-certainty evidence). Massive transfusion protocol versus no massive transfusion protocol Two NRSIs assessed this comparison but had critical risk of bias and were subsequently excluded from analysis. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOverall, available evidence for the effects of blood and blood product transfusion on priority maternal outcomes is largely uncertain. Low-certainty evidence suggests that 1 to 2 units of RBC transfusion may increase the risk of severe maternal morbidity; however, we urge caution when interpreting this finding as the effect estimates are at serious risk of bias due to possible confounding. We are unable to comment on the effects of larger blood transfusion amounts on severe maternal morbidity.

fundingThis review received no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: This protocol for this Cochrane review is registered with PROSPERO. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024599608.

Indexed as

Blood Component TransfusionBlood TransfusionPostpartum HemorrhageBiasErythrocyte TransfusionFemaleHumansMaternal MortalityPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID39911088
PMCPMC11799872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.