SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Comparing oxytocin alternatives for postpartum hemorrhage prevention in vaginal and caesarean births: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to explore the availability of alternatives to oxytocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) during vaginal births (VB) and caesarean births (CB).
methodsWe followed the Cochrane guidelines for the review, and reported the results using the PRISMA guidelines. Using a thorough search strategy, we retrieved original articles from SCOPUS, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2015 to February 2025. We analyzed the RCTs to compare Tranexamic Acid (TXA), carbetocin, and misoprostol with oxytocin for preventing PPH in both vaginal and caesarean births. The review's protocol has been officially registered with PROSPERO under the identifier CRD420251002602.
resultsA meta-analysis of 20 trials showed no statistically significant difference in reducing blood loss during vaginal births (SMD = - 0.21; 95% CI - 0.62 to 0.19; I
conclusionConsidering the substantial heterogeneity and mostly non-significant pooled results, the current findings should be viewed as indicative rather than conclusive. Further rigorous, well-designed randomized controlled trials are necessary to better define their effectiveness, optimize dosing, and identify patient groups most likely to benefit.
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.