SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Safety and Effectiveness of Uterine Gauze Packing for Refractory Postpartum Haemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe role of uterine gauze packing in treating refractory postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is uncertain given limited evidence of benefit and possible harms.
objectivesTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of uterine packing using plain gauze or gauze impregnated with haemostatic agent(s) for treating refractory PPH. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, CINAHL and CENTRAL from inception through March 2025. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies of intervention (NRSIs) evaluating uterine packing using plain gauze or gauze impregnated with haemostatic agents, compared with usual care or other interventions, for women with refractory PPH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We included one RCT (204 women) and six NRSIs (814 women). We presented findings from the RCT in a forest plot and conducted random-effects meta-analyses for NRSIs. MAIN
resultsThree comparisons had data: plain gauze versus balloon tamponade; gauze impregnated with haemostatic agents versus balloon tamponade; and plain gauze versus uterine artery ligation/embolisation. From the RCT, uterine packing with plain gauze may not reduce the need for additional surgical/radiological intervention (relative risk (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 0.50-3.32) or blood transfusion (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67-1.41; low certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that for women with refractory PPH, uterine packing with plain gauze probably increases postpartum anaemia (< 11 g/dL) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07-1.51) and maternal fever > 38°C (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.21-4.76), compared to balloon tamponade. From NRSIs, evidence is very uncertain about the effects of uterine packing with plain gauze or gauze impregnated with haemostatic agents on all outcomes (very low certainty evidence).
conclusionThere are no clear benefits of uterine packing with plain gauze or gauze impregnated with haemostatic agents for treating refractory PPH, and the risk of postpartum anaemia and maternal fever is probably increased compared to standard care. Prospective well-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of uterine packing and its role in treating refractory PPH.
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.