↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antifibrinolytic drugs for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
42 X users
3 Facebook pages


86 Dimensions

Readers on

408 Mendeley
Antifibrinolytic drugs for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012964
Pubmed ID

Haleema Shakur, Danielle Beaumont, Sue Pavord, Angele Gayet-Ageron, Katharine Ker, Hatem A Mousa


Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) - heaving bleeding within the first 24 hours after giving birth - is one of the main causes of death of women after childbirth. Antifibrinolytics, primarily tranexamic acid (TXA), have been shown to reduce bleeding in surgery and safely reduces mortality in trauma patients with bleeding without increasing the risk of adverse events.An earlier Cochrane review on treatments for primary PPH covered all the various available treatments - that review has now been split by types of treatment. This new review concentrates only on the use of antifibrinolytic drugs for treating primary PPH. To determine the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic drugs for treating primary PPH. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (28 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials of antifibrinolytic drugs (aprotinin, TXA, epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA) and aminomethylbenzoic acid, administered by whatever route) for primary PPH in women.Participants in the trials were women after birth following a pregnancy of at least 24 weeks' gestation with a diagnosis of PPH, regardless of mode of birth (vaginal or caesarean section) or other aspects of third stage management.We have not included quasi-randomised trials, or cross-over studies. Studies reported as abstracts have not been included if there was insufficient information to allow assessment of risk of bias.In this review we only identified studies looking at TXA. Two review authors independently extracted data from each study using an agreed form. We entered data into Review Manager software and checked for accuracy.For key review outcomes, we rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach. Three trials (20,412 women) met our inclusion criteria. Two trials (20,212 women) compared intravenous (IV) TXA with placebo or standard care and were conducted in acute hospital settings (labour ward, emergency department) (in high-, middle- and low-income countries).One other trial (involving 200 women) was conducted in Iran and compared IV TXA with rectal misoprostol, but did not report on any of this review's primary or GRADE outcomes. There were no trials that assessed EACA, aprotinin or aminomethylbenzoic acid.Standard care plus IV TXA for the treatment of primary PPH compared with placebo or standard care aloneTwo trials (20,212 women) assessed the effect of TXA for the treatment of primary PPH compared with placebo or standard care alone. The larger of these (The WOMAN trial) contributed over 99% of the data and was assessed as being at low risk of bias. The quality of the evidence varied for different outcomes, Overall, evidence was mainly graded as moderate to high quality.The data show that IV TXA reduces the risk of maternal death due to bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.00; two trials, 20,172 women; quality of evidence: moderate). The quality of evidence was rated as moderate due to imprecision of effect estimate. The effect was more evident in women given treatment between one and three hours after giving birth with no apparent reduction when given after three hours (< one hour = RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.16; one to three hours = RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88; > three hours = RR 1.07, 95% 0.76 to 1.51; test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 4.90, df = 2 (P = 0.09), I² = 59.2%). There was no heterogeneity in the effect by mode of birth (test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 0.01, df = 1 (P = 0.91), I² = 0%). There were fewer deaths from all causes in women receiving TXA, although the 95% CI for the effect estimate crosses the line of no effect (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; two trials, 20,172 women, quality of evidence: moderate). Results from one trial with 151 women suggest that blood loss of ≥ 500 mL after randomisation may be reduced (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.93; one trial, 151 women; quality of evidence: low). TXA did not reduce the risk of serious maternal morbidity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; one trial, 20,015 women; quality of evidence: high), hysterectomy to control bleeding (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.12; one trial, 20,017 women; quality of evidence: high) receipt of blood transfusion (any) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; two trials, 20,167 women; quality of evidence: moderate) or maternal vascular occlusive events (any), although results were imprecise for this latter outcome (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.43; one trial, 20,018 women; quality of evidence: moderate). There was an increase in the use of brace sutures in the TXA group (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01, 1.41) and a reduction in the need for laparotomy for bleeding (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49, 0.85). TXA when administered intravenously reduces mortality due to bleeding in women with primary PPH, irrespective of mode of birth, and without increasing the risk of thromboembolic events. Taken together with the reliable evidence of the effect of TXA in trauma patients, the evidence suggests that TXA is effective if given as early as possible.Facilities for IV administration may not be available in non-hospital settings therefore, alternative routes to IV administration need to be investigated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 408 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 408 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 62 15%
Student > Master 47 12%
Researcher 42 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 7%
Other 21 5%
Other 70 17%
Unknown 137 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 144 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 12%
Psychology 11 3%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 1%
Other 36 9%
Unknown 151 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2022.
All research outputs
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 336,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.