Author:
Ambardekar Shubha,Shochet Tara,Bracken Hillary,Coyaji Kurus,Winikoff Beverly
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Trials of interventions for PPH prevention and treatment rely on different measurement methods for the quantification of blood loss and identification of PPH. This study’s objective was to compare measures of blood loss obtained from two different measurement protocols frequently used in studies.
Methods
Nine hundred women presenting for vaginal delivery were randomized to a direct method (a calibrated delivery drape) or an indirect method (a shallow bedpan placed below the buttocks and weighing the collected blood and blood-soaked gauze/pads). Blood loss was measured from immediately after delivery for at least one hour or until active bleeding stopped.
Results
Significantly greater mean blood loss was recorded by the direct than by the indirect measurement technique (253.9 mL and 195.3 mL, respectively; difference = 58.6 mL (95% CI: 31–86); p < 0.001). Almost twice as many women in the direct than in the indirect group measured blood loss > 500 mL (8.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.02).
Conclusions
The study suggests a real and significant difference in blood loss measurement between these methods. Research using blood loss measurement as an endpoint needs to be interpreted taking measurement technique into consideration.
Trial registration
This study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01885845.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Cited by
35 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献