SynthesisLancet (London, England)2025
Prognostic accuracy of clinical markers of postpartum bleeding in predicting maternal mortality or severe morbidity: a WHO individual participant data meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Lancet (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health system stress: Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on obstetric haemorrhage-related mortality in South Africa using confidential enquiry into maternal deaths data.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026Article
- ClotProBMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- PDGF-BB as a potential biomarker for early diagnosis of postpartum hemorrhage.Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
- Article
- Urban-rural disparities in the trends and causes of maternal deaths in Jinan, 1991-2025: a longitudinal trend analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Clinical care processes for early postpartum haemorrhage diagnosis: a nested observational study within the E-MOTIVE trial.Frontiers in global women's health · 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostpartum haemorrhage (excessive bleeding after birth) is a leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. However, there is no global consensus on which clinical markers best define excessive bleeding or reliably predict adverse maternal outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of clinical markers of postpartum bleeding in predicting maternal mortality or severe morbidity.
methodsIn this individual participant data meta-analysis, eligible datasets were identified through a global call for data issued by WHO and systematic searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and WHO trial registries (from database inception to Nov 6, 2024). Studies were eligible if they included at least 200 participants with objectively measured blood loss or other clinical markers of haemodynamic instability, and reported at least one clinical outcome of interest. Individual participant data were requested for all eligible studies. For each dataset, we computed the prognostic accuracy of each clinical marker to predict a composite outcome of maternal mortality or severe morbidity (blood transfusion, surgical interventions, or admission to intensive care unit). Five clinical markers were assessed: measured blood loss, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and shock index. Results were meta-analysed through two-level mixed-effects logistic regression models, with a bivariate normal model used to generate summary accuracy estimates. Clinical marker and threshold selections were informed by a WHO expert consensus process, which placed emphasis on maximising prognostic sensitivity (preferably >80%) over prognostic specificity (preferably ≥50%). This meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251034918).
findingsWe identified 33 potentially eligible datasets and successfully obtained and analysed full data for 12 datasets, comprising 312 151 women. At the conventional threshold of 500 mL, measured blood loss had a summary prognostic sensitivity of 75·7% (95% CI 60·3-86·4) and specificity of 81·4% (95% CI 70·7-88·8) for predicting the composite outcome. The preferred sensitivity threshold was reached at 300 mL (83·9% [95% CI 72·8-91·1]), although at the expense of reduced specificity (54·8% [95% CI 38·0-70·5]). Prognostic performance improved with a decision rule that combined the use of either blood loss thresholds less than 500 mL (≥300 mL to ≥450 mL) and any abnormal haemodynamic sign (pulse rate >100 beats per min, systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure <60 mm Hg, or shock index >1·0) or 500 mL or more of blood loss, with sensitivities ranging from 86·9% to 87·9% and specificities from 66·6% to 76·1%.
interpretationMeasured blood loss below the conventional threshold, combined with abnormal haemodynamic signs, accurately predicts women at risk of death or life-threatening complications from postpartum bleeding and could support earlier postpartum haemorrhage diagnosis and treatment.
fundingThe Gates Foundation and UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction.
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.