Skip to main content

Table 3 Maternal mortality

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

 Hofmeyr 2015 [23]

Active management with CCT versus without CCT

2 per 1000

2 per 1000 (1–5)

RR 1.22

(0.55–2.74)

27,300

(2 studies)

Low

Serious inconsistency, serious imprecision

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

2 per 1000

3 per 1000 (2–4)

RR 1.55 (0.88–2.2)

23,232 (1 study)

Low

Evidence based on a single study

Oxytocin

 Pantoja, 2016 [51] Oxytocin injection versus no injection

Not estimable

Not estimable

Not estimable

1586 (1 study)

Very low

Evidence based on a single study, serious imprecision

Prostaglandin

 Hofmeyr 2009 [52] Misoprostol versus no uterotonic/placebo

Not estimable

1 per 1000 (0–2)

RR 2.0 (0.68–5.83)

22,278 (5 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision, reporting bias is high

 Tunçalp 2012 [32] Oral misoprostol versus no uterotonic/placebo

1 per 1000

1 per 1000 (0–4)

RR 1.46 (0.24–8.81)

3965 (3 studies)

Low

Serious inconsistency

 Hofmeyr 2013 [30] Misoprostol versus no uterotonic/placebo

Not estimable

1 per 1000 (0–2)

RR 2.7 (0.72–10.11)

9333 (10 studies)

Moderate

Serious imprecision

Non-pharmacological management

 Abedi, 2016 [62] Nipple stimulation versus no treatment

Not estimable

Not estimable

RR 3.03 (0.12–74.26)

4227 (1 study)

Very low

Evidence based on a single study, 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)