Cochrane · systematic review · CD010980
Methods for blood loss estimation after vaginal birth
Diaz, V, Abalos, E, Carroli, G · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Pregnancy and ChildbirthAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
14
current version
GRADE rated
8
No studies
6
Included studies
NR
No studies 6 · 42.9%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 14.3%Moderate 4 · 28.6%High 2 · 14.3%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Direct estimation using calibrated drapes compared to indirect estimation using visual estimation for blood loss estimation after vaginal birth
Population: women undergoing vaginal birth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Postpartum anaemia Direct estimation using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using visual estimation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Severe morbidity Direct estimation using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using visual estimation | RR 0.82 [0.48, 1.39] | 1 study · 2999 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Blood loss ≥ 500 mL Direct estimation using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using visual estimation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Blood transfusion Direct estimation using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using visual estimation | RR 0.82 [0.46, 1.46] | 1 study · 5561 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Use of plasma expanders Direct estimation using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using visual estimation | RR 0.77 [0.42, 1.42] | 1 study · 3122 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Use of therapeutic uterotonics Direct estimation using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using visual estimation | RR 0.87 [0.42, 1.76] | 1 study · 593 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Maternal infection Direct estimation using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using visual estimation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Direct measurement using calibrated drapes compared to indirect estimation using gravimetric technique for blood loss estimation after vaginal birth
Population: women undergoing vaginal birth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Postpartum anaemia Direct measurement using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using gravimetric technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Severe morbidity Direct measurement using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using gravimetric technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Blood loss ≥ 500 mL Direct measurement using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using gravimetric technique | RR 1.86 [1.11, 3.11] | 1 study · 900 participants | High |
Blood transfusion Direct measurement using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using gravimetric technique | RR 1 [0.06, 15.94] | 1 study · 900 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Use of plasma expanders Direct measurement using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using gravimetric technique | RR 0.67 [0.19, 2.35] | 1 study · 900 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Use of therapeutic uterotonics Direct measurement using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using gravimetric technique | RR 1.01 [0.9, 1.13] | 1 study · 900 participants | High |
Maternal infection Direct measurement using calibrated drapes vs indirect estimation using gravimetric technique | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |