Retrospective analysis compares three risk assessment tools for hemorrhage in pregnant individuals, suggesting improvement needed in predictive models.
Objective The objective was to compare the performance of three postpartum hemorrhage risk screening tools with a known patient data set. Design This is a retrospective secondary data analysis of a parent study whose aim was to develop a novel biomarker for detecting elevated blood loss with childbirth. Setting A single tertiary care hospital in the United States. Participants Inclusion criteria for the parent study were ≥ 37 weeks, ≥ 18 years, and pregnancy with one live fetus (no multiples). Eligible participants were identified upon admission to the labor unit and enrolled after informed consent was obtained. Methods/Main Outcome Measures Statistical analyses were computed using Stata SE, v18. Bivariate associations between binary outcomes and continuous measures were calculated using independent t ‐tests. Bivariate associations between binary outcomes and categorical measures were calculated using chi‐square tests. Results Recruitment occurred June through September 2021 and included n = 525 participants. When using the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ threshold of ≥ 1000 mL, 13.3% (n = 70) of parturients experienced a hemorrhage. When using the World Health Organization’s definition of postpartum hemorrhage of ≥ 500 mL, the prevalence of hemorrhage was 36.8% ( n = 193). Sensitivity was highest in identifying hemorrhage with the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses’ tool. When high‐ and medium‐risk scores were considered, the tool had 86% (95% CI: 83.0%–89.0%) accuracy in identifying cases of hemorrhage. This tool also had the highest negative predictive value (78.7%, CI 75.2%–82.2%). Conclusions The tool with the highest sensitivity and negative predictive values identified 21% of cases as “low risk” that went on to experience blood loss ≥ 500 mL, thus underscoring the need for better predictive models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Modri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: