Postpartum hemorrhage care bundles to improve adherence to guidelines: A <scp>WHO</scp> technical consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically develop evidence-based bundles for care of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). METHODS: An international technical consultation was conducted in 2017 to develop draft bundles of clinical interventions for PPH taken from the WHO's 2012 and 2017 PPH recommendations and based on the validated "GRADE Evidence-to-Decision" framework. Twenty-three global maternal-health experts participated in the development process, which was informed by a systematic literature search on bundle definitions, designs, and implementation experiences. Over a 6-month period, the expert panel met online and via teleconferences, culminating in a 2-day in-person meeting. RESULTS: The consultation led to the definition of two care bundles for facility implementation. The "first response to PPH bundle" comprises uterotonics, isotonic crystalloids, tranexamic acid, and uterine massage. The "response to refractory PPH bundle" comprises compressive measures (aortic or bimanual uterine compression), the non-pneumatic antishock garment, and intrauterine balloon tamponade (IBT). Advocacy, training, teamwork, communication, and use of best clinical practices were defined as PPH bundle supporting elements. CONCLUSION: For the first response bundle, further research should assess its feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness; and identify optimal implementation strategies. For the response to refractory bundle, further research should address pending controversies, including the operational definition of refractory PPH and effectiveness of IBT devices.
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 | 0.204 | 0.326 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".