Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
ClotPro
Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSevere haemorrhage remains a leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide, despite advancements in obstetric care. Although viscoelastic testing is recommended to guide treatment of postpartum haemorrhage, device-specific physiological parameters and reference ranges specific to pregnancy are necessary to enable accurate interpretation of viscoelastic findings in the clinical management of obstetric patients. Evaluation of ClotPro®, including comparison with conventional laboratory assays and with non-pregnant individuals, is therefore essential to support its use in obstetric patients.
methodsIn this prospective study, venous blood samples were obtained from 130 parturient participants before labour and 45 non-pregnant controls. Samples were analysed with conventional laboratory coagulation tests and the ClotPro® device. ClotPro® parameters and conventional laboratory tests were compared between the parturient population and non-pregnant control group with Student’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate. The correlation between selected laboratory and coagulation parameters was assessed with Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Reference ranges for ClotPro® in parturients were established by calculation of percentiles 2.5 and 97.5.
resultsSignificant statistical differences in clot firmness were found across the EX-test, IN-test, and FIB-test (p < 0.006) between parturient and non-pregnant participants. The most pronounced differences were observed in the FIB-test. Strong correlation was observed between conventional laboratory tests and FIB-test (Rs = 0.657, p < 0.001 in the pregnant group; Rs = 0.669, p < 0.001 in the control group). According to our findings, reference ranges were established for the parturient population: EX-test, CT (39–67 s), A5 (39–59 mm), ML (1–9%), MCF (57–70 mm); FIB-test, A5 (15–29 mm), MCF (19–35 mm); and IN-test, CT (121–172 s).
conclusionPregnant women exhibit a distinct ClotPro® coagulation profile, characterised by increased clot firmness in FIB-test, supported by correlations with standard laboratory tests and parturient-specific reference intervals. These findings enhance the physiological interpretation of ClotPro® in obstetric care and may support its future integration into postpartum haemorrhage management.
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.