National and International Guidelines for Patient Blood Management in Obstetrics: A Qualitative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In developed countries, rates of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) requiring transfusion have been increasing. As a result, anesthesiologists are being increasingly called upon to assist with the management of patients with severe PPH. First responders, including anesthesiologists, may adopt Patient Blood Management (PBM) recommendations of national societies or other agencies. However, it is unclear whether national and international obstetric societies' PPH guidelines account for contemporary PBM practices. We performed a qualitative review of PBM recommendations published by the following national obstetric societies and international groups: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, United Kingdom; The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada; an interdisciplinary group of experts from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, an international multidisciplinary consensus group, and the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. We also reviewed a PPH bundle, published by The National Partnership for Maternal Safety. On the basis of our review, we identified important differences in national and international societies' recommendations for transfusion and PBM. In the light of PBM advances in the nonobstetric setting, obstetric societies should determine the applicability of these recommendations in the obstetric setting. Partnerships among medical, obstetric, and anesthetic societies may also help standardize transfusion and PBM guidelines in obstetrics.
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 | 0.035 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".