SynthesisInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Intrauterine balloon tamponade versus uterine gauze packing for postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intrauterine balloon tamponade versus uterine gauze packing for postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
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
backgroundIntrauterine balloon tamponade (IUBT) and uterine gauze packing (UGP) are commonly used to manage postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) that is unresponsive to first-line therapies.
objectiveThis study compares the efficacy and safety of the IUBT and UGP in the management of PPH.
methodWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception to June 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the IUBT to the UGP for the management of PPH. The primary outcomes were maternal mortality and blood loss. The secondary outcomes included blood transfusion, additional interventions, organ injury, and infection. We assessed the risk of bias for each outcome reported by the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
resultsFour trials involving 577 patients were included. Moderate-certainty evidence revealed no difference in mortality rates. IUBT might reduce blood loss volume (mean difference -276.2 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] -563.0 to 10.6; low certainty) and transfusion (very low certainty) compared to UGP. IUBT might increase the need for additional interventions, but the evidence for this is very uncertain (risk ratio [RR] 2.57, 95% CI 0.89-7.40; very low certainty). IUBT likely reduces organ injury (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.95) and infection (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.38-0.59) compared to UGP (moderate certainty).
conclusionThe IUBT might reduce blood loss, transfusion, and complications in PPH compared to UGP, although the certainty of evidence is low. Larger, high-quality RCTs are required.
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.