Evaluation and management of postpartum hemorrhage: consensus from an international expert panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) remains one of the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide, although the lack of a precise definition precludes accurate data of the absolute prevalence of PPH. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An international expert panel in obstetrics, gynecology, hematology, transfusion, and anesthesiology undertook a comprehensive review of the literature. At a meeting in November 2011, the panel agreed on a definition of severe PPH that would identify those women who were at a high risk of adverse clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The panel agreed on the following definition for severe persistent (ongoing) PPH: "Active bleeding >1000 mL within the 24 hours following birth that continues despite the use of initial measures including first-line uterotonic agents and uterine massage." A treatment algorithm for severe persistent PPH was subsequently developed. Initial evaluations include measurement of blood loss and clinical assessments of PPH severity. Coagulation screens should be performed as soon as persistent (ongoing) PPH is diagnosed, to guide subsequent therapy. If initial measures fail to stop bleeding and uterine atony persists, second- and third-line (if required) interventions should be instated. These include mechanical or surgical maneuvers, i.e., intrauterine balloon tamponade or hemostatic brace sutures with hysterectomy as the final surgical option for uncontrollable PPH. Pharmacologic options include hemostatic agents (tranexamic acid), with timely transfusion of blood and plasma products playing an important role in persistent and severe PPH. CONCLUSION: Early, aggressive, and coordinated intervention by health care professionals is critical in minimizing blood loss to ensure optimal clinical outcomes in management of women with severe, persistent PPH.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".