Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the accuracy of estimated blood loss at obstetric haemorrhage using clinical reconstructions

Bose, P, Regan, F, Paterson‐Brown, S·2006·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objectives Following the results of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths report, which claims two maternal deaths annually in the UK from postpartum haemorrhage, our aim was to assess the accuracy of ‘visual estimation of blood loss’ and produce suitable pictorial and written algorithms to aid in the recognition and management of massive obstetric haemorrhage. Design Observational study to determine discrepancy between actual blood loss (ABL) and estimated blood loss (EBL). Setting Teaching hospital. Population Hundred and three obstetricians, anaesthetists, midwives, nurses and healthcare assistants. Methods Clinical scenarios were reproduced in the form of 12 Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) style stations augmented with known volumes of whole blood. Individual staff estimated the blood loss visually and recorded their results. Digital photographs were used to produce a pictorial ‘algorithm’ suitable for use as a teaching tool in labour ward. Main outcome measures Areas of greatest discrepancy between EBL and ABL. Results Significant underestimation of the ABL occurred in 5 of the 12 OSCE stations: 500‐ml (50‐cm diameter) floor spill, 1000‐ml (75‐cm diameter) floor spill, 1500‐ml (100‐cm diameter) floor spill, 350‐ml capacity of soaked 45‐ × 45‐cm large swab and the 2‐l vaginal postpartum haemorrhage on bed/floor. Conclusions Accurate visual estimation of blood loss is known to facilitate timely resuscitation, minimising the risk of disseminated intravascular coagulation and reducing the severity of haemorrhagic shock. Participation in clinical reconstructions may encourage early diagnosis and prompt treatment of postpartum haemorrhage. Written and pictorial guidelines may help all staff working in labour wards.

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 · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01018.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Bose, P., Regan, F., & Paterson‐Brown, S.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-07-18
Volume
113
Issue
8
Pages
919-924
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2119794814
Cited by
369
References
1
FWCI
11.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving the accuracy of estimated blood loss at obstetric haemorrhage using clinical reconstructions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01018.x
The paper
Bose, P., Regan, F., & Paterson‐Brown, S. (2006). Improving the accuracy of estimated blood loss at obstetric haemorrhage using clinical reconstructions. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01018.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.