↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A global quantitative survey of hemostatic assessment in postpartum hemorrhage and experience with associated bleeding disorders

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Women's Health, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
A global quantitative survey of hemostatic assessment in postpartum hemorrhage and experience with associated bleeding disorders
Published in
International Journal of Women's Health, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijwh.s132135
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andra H James, David L Cooper, Michael J Paidas

Abstract

Coagulopathy may be a serious complicating or contributing factor to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and should be promptly recognized to ensure proper bleeding management. This study aims to evaluate the approaches of obstetrician-gynecologists worldwide towards assessing massive PPH caused by underlying bleeding disorders. A quantitative survey was completed by 302 obstetrician-gynecologists from 6 countries (the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan). The survey included questions on the use of hematologic laboratory studies, interpretation of results, laboratory's role in coagulation assessments, and experience with bleeding disorders. Overall, the most common definitions of "massive" PPH were >2,000 mL (39%) and >1,500 mL (34%) blood loss. The most common criteria for rechecking a "stat" complete blood count and for performing coagulation studies were a drop in blood pressure (73%) and ongoing visible bleeding (78%), respectively. Laboratory coagulation (prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time [PT/aPTT]) and factor VIII/IX assays were performed on-site more often than were mixing studies (laboratory coagulation studies, 93%; factor VIII/IX assays, 63%; mixing studies, 22%). Most commonly consulted sources of additional information were colleagues within one's own specialty (68%) and other specialists (67%). Most respondents had consulted with a hematologist (78%; least, Germany [56%]; greatest, UK [98%]). The most common reason for not consulting was hematologist unavailability (44%). The most commonly reported thresholds for concern with PT and aPTT were 13 to 20 seconds (36%) and 30 to 45 seconds (50%), respectively. Most respondents reported having discovered an underlying bleeding disorder (58%; least, Japan [35%]; greatest, Spain [74%]). Global survey results highlight similarities and differences between countries in how PPH is assessed and varying levels of obstetrician-gynecologist experience with identification of underlying bleeding disorders and engagement of hematology consultants. Opportunities to improve patient management of PPH associated with bleeding disorders include greater familiarity with interpreting PT/aPTT test results and identification of and consistent consultation with hematologists with relevant expertise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 31%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 33%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 16 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,300,866
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#437
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,097
of 314,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#18
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 314,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.