Skip to main content

Table 5 Blood transfusion

From: Prophylactic management of postpartum haemorrhage in the third stage of labour: an overview of systematic reviews

Intervention and comparison intervention

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect (95% CI)

Number of participants (studies)

Quality of the evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Risk with comparison

Risk with intervention

Active management

 McCormick 2002 [48] Active versus physiological management of third stage of labour

30 per 1000

9 per 1000 (6 to 15)

RR 0.32 (0.20–0.51)

4855 (3 studies)

Low

Serious risk of bias, serious imprecision

 Begley 2015 [21] Active versus expectant management of third stage of labour

29 per 1000

10 per 1000 (6 to 16)

RR 0.35 (0.22–0.55)

4829 (4 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

 Du 2014 [47] Active management with CCT versus without CCT

5 per 1000

5 per 1000 (3 to 7)

RR 0.96 (0.69–1.33)

28,062 (3 studies)

Moderate

Serious risk of bias

 Hofmeyr 2015 [23] Active management with CCT versus without CCT

5 per 1000

5 per 1000 (3 to 7)

RR 0.94 (0.68–1.32)

27,662 (2 studies)

High

 

Oxytocin

 Westhoff 2013 [29] Oxytocin versus placebo

12 per 1000

10 per 1000 (5 to 21)

RR 0.89 (0.44–1.78)

3120 (3 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

 Soltani 2010 [27] Use of oxytocics before versus after delivery of placenta

7 per 1000

6 per 1000 (2 to 20)

RR 0.79 (0.23–2.73)

1667 (3 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

 Mori 2012 [25] Umbilical vein injection of a saline versus oxytocin with a saline alone

Not estimable

Not estimable

RR 3.32 (0.14–78.97)

78 (1 study)

Low

Serious inconsistency, serious imprecision

Prostaglandin

 Tunçalp 2012 [32] Oral misoprostol (400–600 mcg) versus placebo or no uterotonics

7 per 1000

2 per 1000 (1 to 6)

RR 0.31 (0.10–0.94)

3519 (5 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

 Tunçalp 2012 [32] Buccal misoprostol (200 mcg) versus placebo or no uterotonics

16 per 1000

11 per 1000 (4 to 30)

RR 0.68 (0.24–1.89)

1108 (2 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

 Olefile 2013 [55] Oral misoprostol (600 mcg) versus placebo

9 per 1000

1 per 1000 (0 to 10)

RR 0.14 (0.02–1.15)

1620 (1 study)

Moderate

Evidence based on a single study

Ergot alkaloids

 Liabsuetrakul 2007 [33] Oral or intravenous ergot alkaloids versus no uterotonics

7 per 1000

2 per 1000 (1 to 9)

RR 0.33 (0.08–1.40)

1868 (3 studies)

Low

Serious risk of bias, serious imprecision

Tranexamic acid

 Heesen 2014 [58] Tranexamic acids versus placebo

53 per 1000

18 per 1000 (11 to 32)

RR 0.34 (0.20–0.60)

1662 (6 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

 Novikova 2015 [59] Tranexamic acids versus placebo or no treatment

31 per 1000

7 per 1000 (3 to 16)

RR 0.24 (0.11–0.53)

1698 (6 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

 Ker 2016 [60] Tranexamic acids versus placebo or no treatment

44 per 1000

14 per 1000 (8 to 23)

RR 0.31 (0.18–0.53)

2272 (9 studies)

Low

Serious risk of bias, serious imprecision

Timing of cord clamping

 McDonald, 2013 [22] Early versus late cord clamping

15 per 1000

15 per 1000 (7 to 35)

RR 1.02 (0.44–2.37)

1345 (3 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

Uterine massage

 Hofmeyr 2013 [61] Uterine massage before placental delivery versus no massage

6 per 1000

6 per 1000 (2 to 23)

RR 0.97 (0.26–3.58)

1257 (2 studies)

Low

Serious inconsistency, serious imprecision

 Hofmeyr 2013 [61] Uterine massage before and after placental delivery versus no massage

6 per 1000

5 per 1000 (1 to 20)

RR 0.97 (0.26–3.58)

1457 (3 studies)

Low

Serious inconsistency, serious imprecision

  1. GRADE working group grades of evidence
  2. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
  3. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
  4. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  5. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  6. CI Confidence interval, RR risk ratio
  7. *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)