Cited by 117Maternal and fetal healthcareBlood transfusion and managementPregnancy and preeclampsia studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Incidence of Postpartum Hemorrhage in Pregnant Women with Placenta Previa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The global burden of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in women with placenta previa is a major public health concern. Although there are different reports on the incidence of PPH in different countries, to date, no research has reviewed them. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to calculate the average point incidence of PPH in women with placenta previa. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies estimating PPH in women with placenta previa was conducted through literature searches in four databases in Jul 2016. This study was totally conducted according to the MOOSE guidelines and in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standard. RESULTS: From 1148 obtained studies, 11 included in the meta-analysis, which involved 5146 unique pregnant women with placenta previa. The overall pooled incidence of PPH was 22.3% (95% CI 15.8-28.7%). In the subgroup, the prevalence was 27.4% in placenta previas, and was 14.5% in low-lying placenta previa; the highest prevalence was estimated in Northern America (26.3%, 95%CI 11.0-41.6%), followed by the Asia (20.7%, 95%CI 12.8-28.6%), Australia (19.2%, 95% CI 17.2-21.1%) and Europe (17.8%, 95% CI, 11.5%-24.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The summary estimate of the incidence of PPH among women with placenta previa was considerable in this systematic review. The results will be crucial in prevention, treatment, and identification of PPH among pregnant women with placenta previa and will be contributed to the planning and implantation of relevant public health strategies.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0170194

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 PRISMA flowchart showing the study selection process.
Fig 1 PRISMA flowchart showing the study selection process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Forest plot of pooled estimated incidence of PPH with 95% CI.
Fig 2 Forest plot of pooled estimated incidence of PPH with 95% CI.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Funnel plot of the 11 studies included in the meta-analysis.
Fig 3 Funnel plot of the 11 studies included in the meta-analysis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Sensitivity analysis for individual studies on the summary effect.
Fig 4 Sensitivity analysis for individual studies on the summary effect.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 5 Funnel plot by subgroup analysis of placenta types. PP: placenta previas; LPP: low-lying placenta previa.
Fig 5 Funnel plot by subgroup analysis of placenta types. PP: placenta previas; LPP: low-lying placenta previa.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 6 Funnel plot by subgroup analysis of world regions.
Fig 6 Funnel plot by subgroup analysis of world regions.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. M Knight, 2016, Beyond maternal death: improving the quality of maternal care through national studies of 'near-miss' maternal morbidity, Programme Grants for Applied Research. Southampton (UK)
  2. L Zhao, 2016, Effects of different types of placenta previa on pregnancy outcome, Maternal and Child Health Care of China, 31, 1163

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fan, D., Xia, Q., Liu, L., Wu, S., Tian, G., Wang, W., Wu, S., Guo, X., & Liu, Z.
Affiliations
  • Anhui Medical University (CN)
  • Anhui University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN)
  • First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Foshan Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Guo, Xiaoling
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2017-01-20
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
e0170194
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2574444842
Cited by
115
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Keywords
postpartum hemorrhage, placenta previa, incidence, pregnancy complications, maternal morbidity, regional variation in incidence
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Postpartum Hemorrhage, Humans, Placenta Previa, Pregnancy, Incidence

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