Cited by 26Maternal and fetal healthcareBlood transfusion and managementMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.

Introduction of standardized, cumulative quantitative measurement of blood loss into routine maternity care

Powell, E., James, D., Collis, R., Collins, P. W., Pallmann, P., Bell, S.·2022·The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal morbidity in the UK. Visual estimation of blood loss is unreliable yet remains common practice. As part of a national quality improvement project to improve care during PPH, standardized, quantitative measurement of blood loss (QBL) for all deliveries was introduced into a tertiary obstetric unit in Cardiff, Wales. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 875 consecutive maternities between December 2017 and February 2018 was undertaken. Of these, 372 mothers had both pre- and post-partum hemoglobin (Hb) were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the relationship between change in Hb adjusted for red cell transfusion and QBL. RESULTS: = 372) was 0.57. This corresponded to an estimated fall of adjusted change in Hb of 15.3 g/L (95% CI: 13.1, 17.6) per 1000 mL blood loss. DISCUSSION: QBL has been shown to be reliable across all maternity settings, with reproducible results in theater and delivery rooms (on the obstetric unit and alongside midwifery-led unit). QBL is moderately correlated with adjusted change in Hb for all volumes of bleeding and gives clinicians more accurate knowledge of blood loss than visual estimation. This low-cost, low-fidelity intervention can influence the timely escalation of clinical care and therefore patient outcome.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14767058.2020.1759534

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.1111/1471-0528.14178 · DOI
  2. 10.1080/00016340600985032 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1966.tb05188.x · DOI
  4. 10.1136/bmj.1.5537.398 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1016/0028-2243(91)90188-Q · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13749.x · DOI
  7. 10.1111/j.1479-828X.1996.tb03273.x · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s00404-010-1522-1 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1515/jpm-2015-0200 · DOI
  10. 10.1055/s-0039-1688823 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01018.x · DOI
  12. 10.1016/S1031-170X(03)80005-3 · DOI
  13. 10.1213/01.ane.0000286233.48111.d8 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.ijoa.2014.07.009 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.ijoa.2019.05.006 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Bell SF, et al. Incidence of postpartum haemorrhage defined by objective blood loss measurement: a national cohort. 2019. · DOI
  17. R Core Team, 2019, R: a language and environment for statistical computing
  18. 10.1002/bimj.200810425 · DOI
  19. 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 · DOI
  20. 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1997.371098016448.x · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s00404-018-4896-0 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1055/s-0037-1613675 · DOI
  23. 10.1080/01443610903003159 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/0002-9378(76)90517-2 · DOI
  25. 10.1136/bmj.k3546 · DOI
  26. 10.1186/s13063-018-3109-2 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.017 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.jogn.2018.05.002 · DOI
  29. 10.1055/s-0037-1606275 · DOI
  30. 10.1055/s-0037-1601382 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1007/s00404-010-1532-z · DOI
  32. 10.1515/jpme.1995.23.1-2.51 · DOI
  33. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003449 · DOI
  34. 10.1186/s12884-015-0653-6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Powell, E., James, D., Collis, R., Collins, P. W., Pallmann, P., & Bell, S.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff and Vale University Health Board (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Powell, E.
Venue
The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine
Published
2020-05-04
Volume
35
Issue
8
Pages
1491-1497
ISSN
  • 1476-4954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-7058
OpenAlex
W3023328736
Cited by
26
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood transfusion and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
postpartum hemorrhage, hemoglobin change, visual estimation of blood loss, standardized measurement, obstetric care, red blood cell transfusion, maternal morbidity, quality improvement
MeSH terms
Female, Postpartum Hemorrhage, Humans, Maternal Health Services, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Retrospective Studies, Erythrocyte Transfusion, Delivery, Obstetric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review