Fibrinogen concentrate versus placebo for treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a major cause of maternal morbidity. Bleeding is caused by a combination of physical causes, such as failure of the uterus to contract or operations, and is made worse by impairment of the blood clotting system. A number of studies have shown that low levels of the blood clotting factor fibrinogen are associated with progression of bleeding, the need for invasive interventions and transfusions of red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma (FFP). This trial will investigate whether early infusion of fibrinogen concentrate during a major PPH, with the aim of correcting a low fibrinogen to a level that is normal for delivery, based on the Fibtem test, reduces the total number of allogeneic blood products (red blood cells, FFP, cryoprecipitate and platelets) transfused after study medication until discharge, compared to placebo. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, randomised, double-blind placebo controlled trial. Women will enter an observational phase and if their Fibtem levels fall they will be randomised in the interventional phase. A total of 60 women will be randomised and women are eligible for the trial if they meet all of the following inclusion criteria: age 18 years or over, gestation ≥24 + 0 weeks, haemorrhage of about 1500 ml and on-going bleeding without another complication or haemorrhage of about 1000 ml and caesarean section/uterine atony/placental abruption/placenta praevia/cardiovascular instability or microvascular oozing. Participants with a Fibtem A5 < 16 mm will be randomly allocated to receive either a bolus infusion of fibrinogen concentrate or placebo (isotonic saline). The dose of fibrinogen concentrate or placebo will be calculated based on the woman's ideal body weight for height and the measured Fibtem A5 with the aim of increasing the Fibtem A5 to 23 mm. DISCUSSION: The trial aims to provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of fibrinogen concentrate during acute bleeding in an obstetric setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN46295339 (01.07.2013); EudraCT: 2012-005511-11 (28.11.2012), UKCRN ref: 13940.
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 | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.014 |
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".