0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prophylactic Radiologic Interventions for Postpartum Hemorrhage Control in Women With Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Prophylactic placement of balloon catheters or sheaths before planned cesarean delivery in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder may reduce perioperative blood loss.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVE:

          To quantify the association between prophylactic radiologic interventions and perioperative blood loss during cesarean delivery in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

          DATA SOURCES:

          On January 3, 2023, a literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We also checked ClinicalTrials.gov retrospectively. Prophylactic radiologic interventions to reduce bleeding during cesarean delivery involved preoperative placement of balloon catheters, distal (internal or common iliac arteries) or proximal (abdominal aorta), or sheaths (uterine arteries). The primary outcome was volume of blood loss; secondary outcomes were the number of red blood cell units transfused and adverse events. Studies including women who received an emergency cesarean delivery were excluded.

          METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION:

          Two authors independently screened citations for relevance, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool.

          TABULTATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS:

          From a total of 1,332 screened studies, 50 were included in the final analysis, comprising 5,962 women. These studies consisted of two randomized controlled trials and 48 observational studies. Thirty studies compared distal balloon occlusion with a control group, with a mean difference in blood loss of −406 mL (95% CI, −645 to −167). Fourteen studies compared proximal balloon occlusion with a control group, with a mean difference of −1,041 mL (95% CI, −1,371 to −710). Sensitivity analysis excluding studies with serious or critical risk of bias provided similar results. Five studies compared uterine artery embolization with a control group, all with serious or critical risk of bias; the mean difference was −936 mL (95% CI, −1,522 to −350). Reported information on adverse events was limited.

          CONCLUSION:

          Although the predominance of observational studies in the included literature warrants caution in interpreting the findings of this meta-analysis, our findings suggest that prophylactic placement of balloon catheters or sheaths before planned cesarean delivery in women with placenta accreta spectrum disorder may, in some cases, substantially reduce perioperative blood loss. Further study is required to quantify the efficacy according to various severities of placenta accreta spectrum disorder and the associated safety of these radiologic interventions.

          SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:

          PROSPERO, CRD42022320922.

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

              Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Obstet Gynecol
                Obstet Gynecol
                ong
                Obstetrics and Gynecology
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0029-7844
                1873-233X
                September 2024
                2 July 2024
                : 144
                : 3
                : 315-327
                Affiliations
                Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clinical Epidemiology, Clinical Endocrinology, and Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, and Leiden University Libraries, Leiden University, Leiden, the Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Department of Radiology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, and Athena Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; and the Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Section Anesthesiology, KU Leuven and UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Johanna van der Bom, MD, PhD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; j.g.van_der_bom@ 123456lumc.nl .
                Article
                ONG-24-81 00005
                10.1097/AOG.0000000000005662
                11321610
                38954828
                878e3feb-68a8-4ec2-a398-cb5948bd3c27
                Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 January 2024
                : 01 March 2024
                : 23 May 2024
                Categories
                CONTENTS
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                Comments

                Comment on this article