MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414579010 · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2025.09.034

Prophylactic oxytocin dose following vaginal birth to prevent postpartum hemorrhage: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4414579010 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Hébert, Rohan D’Souza, Nancy Santesso, Dena Zeraatkar, Irina Oltean, Meagan Furnivall, Behnam Sadeghirad, Elizabeth Darling

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxytocinPregnancyVaginal birthVaginal deliveryPostpartum periodMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis assessing the effect of different oxytocin prophylaxis doses on preventing postpartum hemorrhage after vaginal birth. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Global Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception-June 9, 2025), along with reference lists of eligible trials. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing different intravenous or intramuscular doses of prophylactic oxytocin, or a single prophylactic dose with no oxytocin, following vaginal birth were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion and risk of bias. A random-effects dose-response meta-analysis was conducted using a one-stage approach with a restricted maximum likelihood heterogeneity estimator and modeled using restricted cubic splines to detect departure from linearity. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Sufficient data were available to undertake a dose-response meta-analysis for blood loss ≥1000 mL, mean blood loss, blood transfusion, and use of additional uterotonics. RESULTS: 13 studies involving 8961 participants were included, with oxytocin doses ranging from 2.5 to 80 IU. A J-shaped, nonlinear relationship was observed for blood loss ≥1000 mL, mean blood loss, and use of additional uterotonics. Doses of 4 to 10 IU resulted in 6 to 7 fewer individuals per 1000 experiencing blood loss ≥1000 mL (high certainty; risk with no oxytocin: 19 per 1000 individuals), likely 10 to 12 fewer individuals per 100 requiring additional uterotonics (moderate certainty; risk with no oxytocin: 26 per 100 individuals), but likely resulted in little to no difference in mean blood loss (moderate certainty). Lower doses (2.5-3 IU) likely reduced the risk of severe blood loss (moderate certainty) and may reduce additional uterotonic use (low certainty). At 20 IU, the risk of severe blood loss was probably reduced (moderate certainty), with possible diminishing returns at higher doses (low certainty). Additional uterotonics may increase at doses ≥20 IU (low certainty). No dose-response relationship was observed for blood transfusion. CONCLUSION: Available evidence suggests the optimal range for oxytocin prophylaxis after vaginal birth is 4 to 10 IU, with lower doses within this range offering the best balance of efficacy and safety. However, limitations in the evidence base, including narrow dose ranges, under-representation of high-risk populations, and inconsistent reporting of safety outcomes, highlight the need for further research across clinical contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.037
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology→Same topicMaternal and fetal healthcare→French-language works237,207→