ReviewPakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Utility of shock index for predicting severity of postpartum haemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carbetocin versus oxytocin during elective cesarean delivery: A randomized double-blind trial.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Impact of Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography on the Management of Postpartum Hemorrhage with Extravasation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Thromboelastography combined with conventional coagulation parameters for developing a nomogram model to predict postpartum hemorrhage risk: A retrospective analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Narrowed pulse pressure as a predictor of active hemorrhage in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma: Insights from an Asian cohort.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of maternal mortality globally. Shock index (SI), a simple measure of heart rate to systolic blood pressure ratio, has been proposed as a tool to predict severe PPH, but its efficacy varies across different settings. This study aims to assess diagnostic accuracy of SI for severe PPH. Methods: Comprehensive database searches of EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, and MEDLINE Cochrane library was done for studies reporting data on SI in patients with PPH from inception of each database until March 2024. Data on sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were extracted. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the income group of the countries and the criteria used to define severe PPH. Results: Twenty studies were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of SI for predicting severe PPH were 76% (95% confidence interval (CI): 67%-83%) and 78% (95% CI: 68%-85%), respectively; diagnostic OR was 11 (95% CI: 5-24), and the AUC was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87). Subgroup analysis revealed higher diagnostic accuracy of SI in lower/upper middle-income countries compared to high-income countries. Studies using blood transfusion as a criterion for severe PPH showed higher predictive sensitivity and specificity of the shock compared to studies using quantitative blood loss. Conclusion: Shock index demonstrates moderate effectiveness in predicting severe PPH and can be a valuable tool in emergency obstetric care, particularly when used as part of a multi-parameter diagnostic approach. Future research should focus on refining its use across different clinical settings.
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.