ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article
Revised

Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

[version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]
PUBLISHED 15 Oct 2020
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background
Globally, primary postpartum haemorrhage continues to cause considerable maternal morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage. The findings could potentially be used to anticipate and prevent composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage.
Methods
This was a retrospective cross-sectional study carried out at Mpilo Central Hospital, a government tertiary referral centre, covering the period 1 July 2016 to 30 November 2019. Participants were included in the study if they had a diagnosis of postpartum haemorrhage. Those variables that had a p<0.2 from the univariate logistic regression analyses were considered for multivariable logistic regression. The association between independent variables and the dependent variable was assessed using odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, to identify independent risk factors for composite adverse outcomes in PPH. A p< 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.
Results
The independent risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage were place of dwelling (AOR 4.57, 95% CI 1.87-11.12, p=0.01), prior Caesarean section (AOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.10-6.00, p=0.03), antepartum haemorrhage (AOR 5.45, 95% CI 2.23-13.27, p<0.0001), antenatal haemoglobin level (AOR 19.64, 95% CI 1.44-268.50, p=0.03), and current delivery by Caesarean section (AOR 10.21, 95% CI 4.39-23.74, p<0.0001). 
Blood loss was also an independent risk factor for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage with the following blood loss; 1001-1500ml (AOR 9.94, 95% CI 3.68-26.88, p<0.0001), 500-1000ml (AOR 41.27, 95% CI 11.32-150.54, p<0.0001), and 2001ml (AOR 164.77, 95% CI 31.06-874.25, p<0.0001).
Conclusion
This study found that the independent predictors for composite adverse outcomes of PPH were rural dwelling, prior Caesarean section, antenatal haemoglobin level, current delivery by Caesarean section, and blood loss. In low- and middle-income countries such information could help in increasing clinical vigilance and policy making, and preventing maternal deaths.

Keywords

Postpartum haemorrhage, risk factors, composite adverse outcomes, low-resource settings

Revised Amendments from Version 1

This new version is much clearer with more information added to most of the sections, but mostly on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections. There more clearer details on the conclusions. The explanations should help with the article understanding as this study focuses on risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of PPH rather than the usual risk factors for PPH. There are few studies of this nature so this is a unique study.

See the author's detailed response to the review by Jaffu O. Chilongola

Introduction

The definition of primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is that of blood loss from the genital tract of ≥500 mL or more following a normal vaginal delivery or ≥1,000 mL or more following a cesarean section within 24 hours of delivery as evidenced by a rise in the pulse rate, and falling blood pressure13.

Every day in 2017, approximately 810 women died from all causes related to pregnancy and childbirth, and 94% of all maternal deaths occurred in low and lower middle-income countries4. Researchers have reported in a systematic analysis that low- and middle income countries accounted for 480 000 maternal deaths (32%) compared with 1200 (8%) in the developed regions5. PPH is the leading cause of maternal deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa6.

The multi-country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health reported the prevalence of PPH to be 1.2%, with higher rates in developing countries than developed ones7. Other studies in Sub-Saharan Africa reported rates of 1.6% in Zimbabwe, 16.6% in Southern Ethiopia, 9% in Uganda and 23.6% in Cameroon1,3,8,9, respectively. Ford et al. reported increasing PPH rates from 6.1% in 2003 to 8.3% in 2011 (p<0.0001) in Australia due to better recording of PPH10.

Two-third of women with PPH having no identifiable risk factors11. Recognized risk factors for PPH include previous PPH, twin gestation, large baby, induction of labour, prolonged labour, operative delivery, preeclampsia, caesarean delivery, grand multiparity, maternal age 35 or above, and postdates1,8,1215.

Tort et al. found the following factors were significantly associated with PPH maternal mortality: age over 35 years, living in Mali, residing outside the region location of the hospital, pre-existing chronic disease before pregnancy, prepartum severe anemia, forceps or vacuum delivery, birth weight greater than 4000 grams, transfusion, transfer to another hospital. They also reported that there was a smaller risk of PPH maternal death in hospitals with gynecologist-obstetrician13.

Women suffering a PPH can face significant risks. Serious maternal morbidity include multiple blood transfusions, and their associated risks peripartum hysterectomy16, ultiple organ failure, maternal collapse, and maternal mortality.

PPH is an obstetric emergency. Prevention of PPH should be the aim with each delivery. The active management of the third stage of labour done routinely reduces the incidence of PPH, and the administration of oxytocin after delivery of the anterior shoulder being the most important and effective component of the active management practice17. The management of PPH include the use of additional oxytocic agents, multiple blood transfusions, uterine packing, ballon tamponade, B-Lynch sutures18, and peripartum hysterectomy16.

The aim of this research was to determine risk factors for poor composite adverse outcome of PPH. Poor composite adverse outcome was defined as maternal death or serious morbidity. This could help clinicians, study population, and policy makers to identify which women with PPH are at risk of composite adverse outcomes and increase further the clinical vigilance associated with the management of PPH thereby preventing deaths.

Methods

Study type, setting and participants

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study carried out at Mpilo Central Hospital, a government tertiary referral centre, covering the period 1 July 2016 to 30 November 2019. Mpilo Central Hospital is situated in the township of Mzilikazi in Bulawayo. Bulawayo, is the second largest city in Zimbabwe after the capital city Harare, with a population of 653, 337 as of the 2012 census19. Participants were included in the study if they had a diagnosis of postpartum haemorrhage within 24 hours of delivery at Mpilo Central Hospital. Mpilo Central Hospital delivers an average of 10 000 babies per year. It is has a 20 bedded, consultant-led labour ward. There are 150 midwives and 30 medical personnel that work in it. A single-centre study was chosen so that to exposure women to one standardized care so that risk factors could be determined without other confounding factors. Therefore, women that delivered outside the hospital were excluded from the study to control for confounding factors.

Independent variables

The independent variables included socio-demographic factors, mode of delivery, fetal characteristics, blood loss, laboratory tests, causes of PPH and the management of PPH.

Main outcome measure

The main outcome of interest for the study was the composite adverse outcome which included maternal death or serious morbidity (either of hypovolaemic shock or haemoglobin <4g/dL or massive blood transfusion >4 units or hysterectomy or admission to ICU or coagulopathy or major organ dysfunction), similar to the the Delphi consensus study on PPH20.

Data collection

Data was collected for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 November 2019, recording all the women that met the criteria during the study period. Data collection was done by using a paper data collection tool, that was used to collect secondary data from the labour ward delivery registers, and mortality registers. Hospital case notes were retrieved the clinical data were extracted.

Data analysis

Data were cleaned, coded and entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, then exported to SPSS Version 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) for analysis. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed and presented as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Bivariate correlations of association between main independent variables and the outcome measures were performed using Pearson 2-tailed chi-square test. A p value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, and these were considered for the univariate logistic regression. Those variables that had a p<0.2 from the univariate logistic regression analyses were considered for multivariable logistic regression. The association between independent variables and the dependent variable was assessed using odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals, to identify independent risk factors for composite adverse outcomes in PPH, holding other variables constant and adjusting for co-variates. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit was used to check if the model fitted well. A p< 0.05 was taken as statistically significant.

Ethical approval

The Ethics Committee at Mpilo Central Hospital made a ruling for all retrospective studies to go ahead in the institution from 2016 onwards as long as the data remained anonymous. No individual patient consent was necessary as the study was retrospective and the data was anonymous. No ethical issues will arise during the study as all the data will remain anonymous with no identifying personal data. Minutes of the Committee’s inaugural meeting held on the 13th October 2016 set out the requirements of all the studies at the institution.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of participants

A total of 386 cases of PPH were recorded during the period 1 July 2016 to 30 October 2019. The summary of maternal and fetal characteristics are shown Table 1Table 5. The majority (27.7%) of women were aged 25–29 years. 60.1% of women were of gestational age of 37–40 weeks. 87.0% of women were from urban dwelling. More than three-thirds (67.9%) had normal vaginal delivery. The commonest risk factory present for PPH was preeclampsia (25.1%). 71.7% of the babies weighed 2501–4000g. 73.6% of women lost 500-1000ml of blood. The commonest cause of PPH was uterine atony (78.8%). The maternal mortality rate was 2.8%, and the composite adverse outcome rate was 11.1%. Table 6 shows the bivariate correlations. De-identified results are available for each patient as Underlying data21.

Table 1. Maternal and fetal characteristics.

VariableMedianInterquartile
range
Maternal age (years)
Gravidity
Parity
Gestational age (weeks)
Antenatal haemoglobin(g/dL)
Platelet count (x109/L)
Blood loss (ml)
Birth weight (g)
28
3
1
39
11.3
205
800
3200
23–33
2–4
1–2
37–40
10.3–12.2
160–266
600–1100
2700–3550

Only the post-delivery haemoglobin level was normally distributed with a mean of 9.6 g/dL (SD±2.4).

NB: Blood loss is estimated blood loss plus measured blood loss as protocol for the unit in all PPH cases.

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of study patients.

CharacteristicFrequencyPercentage (%)
Age (years)
14–20
21–24
25–29
30–34
35 and above

Gestational age (weeks)
24–30
31–34
35–36
37–40
41 and above

HIV status
Negative
Positive
Unknown

Place of dwelling
Urban
Rural

Mode of delivery
Normal vaginal delivery
Vacuum
Forceps
LSCS
n=386
61
67
107
77
74

n=386
19
18
40
232
77

n=385
293
79
13

n=386
336
50

n=386
262
2
1
121

15.8
17.4
27.7
19.9
19.2


4.9
4.7
10.4
60.1
19.9


76.1
20.5
3.4


87.0
13.0


67.9
0.5
0.3
31.3

LSCS; lower segment caesarean section, HIV; human immunodeficiency virus

Table 3. Present risk factors for PPH.

Risk factorsFrequency
(n=386)
Percentages (%)
Past history of PPH
Past history of APH
Previous LSCS
Preeclampsia
APH
Presence of fibroids
Large for dates
Intrauterine death (IUD)
Induction of labour (IOL)
Prolonged labour (>18 hours)
Oxytocin augmentation
Multiple risk factors
8
4
55
97
46
4
31
37
8
54
4
76
2.1
1.0
14.3
25.1
11.9
1.0
8.0
9.7
2.1
14.0
1.0
21.8

APH; antepartum haemorrhage

Table 4. Fetal birth weight, blood loss and causes of PPH.

VariableFrequencyPercentages (%)
Fetal birth weight (g)
0–1500
1501–2500
2501–4000
4001 and above

Blood loss (ml)
500–1000
1001–1500
1501–2000
2001 and above

Causes of PPH
Perineal trauma
Retained placenta
Uterine atony
Bleeding disorder
Ruptured uterus
n=414
25
71
297
21

n=386
284
67
21
14

n=386
49
22
304
1
10

6.0
17.1
71.7
5.1


73.6
17.4
5.4
3.6


12.7
5.7
78.8
2.6
0.2

Table 5. Management and outcomes in PPH.

VariableFrequency
(n=386)
Percentages
(%)
Management
Additional oxytocic doses
Rectal misoprostol
Intravenous fluids
Blood transfusion
FFP/platelet transfusion
Vaginal packing
Perineal repair
Manual removal of placenta

Outcomes
Hypovolaemic shock
Haemoglobin of <4g/dL
Massive blood transfusion
Coagulopathy
Hysterectomy
Admission to ICU
Mortality
Composite adverse outcomes

355
16
367
105
10
10
36
22


15
5
24
1
22
22
11
43

92.0
4.1
95.1
27.2
2.6
2.6
9.3
5.7


3.9
1.3
6.2
0.3
5.7
5.7
2.8
11.1

FFP; fresh frozen plasma, ICU; intensive care unit

Table 6. Bivariate correlations between independent variables and composite adverse outcome.

VariableP-value
Age
Gravidity
Parity
Gestational age
HIV status
Antiretroviral therapy
Booked
Referred
Unbooked
Place of dwelling
Past history of PPH
Past history of APH
Previous LSCS
Preeclampsia
APH
Presence of fibroids
Large for gestational age
IUD
IOL
Prolonged labour
Oxytocin augmentation
Antenatal haemoglobin
Blood loss
Post PPH haemoglobin
Perinieal trauma
Uterine atony
Bleeding disorder
Ruptured uterus
Oxytocin drip
Rectal misoprostol
Vaginal packing
Perineal repairs
Manual removal of placenta
<0.0001
0.01
0.004
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.31
0.025
<0.0001
0.31
0.38
0.001
0.24
<0.0001
0.48
0.40
<0.0001
0.90
0.35
0.48
0.04
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.09
0.10
0.72
0.02
0.04
0.32
0.26
0.09
0.75

Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes

Table 7 and Table 8 show the results of the multivariable logistic regression. Rural women were 4.6 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes compared to women from urban areas (AOR 4.57, 95% CI 1.87-11.12, p=0.01).

Table 7. Univariate and multivariate analysis between demographics and composite adverse outcome in PPH.

VariableUnivariate
Odds ratio
95%
Confidence
Interval
P–valueMultivariate
Odds ratio
95%
Confidence
Interval
P–value
LowerUpperLowerUpper
Age (years)
14–20
21–24
25–29
30–34
35 and above

Reference
1.87
3.38
3.42
9.48


0.33
0.72
0.70
2.10


10.61
15.79
16.74
42.75


0.48
0.12
0.13
0.003


1.31
1.65
1.92
3.33


0.16
0.19
0.21
0.35


10.88
14.04
18.01
31.55


0.80
0.65
0.57
0.29
Gravidity
1–2
3–4
4 and above

Reference
3.23
4.61


0.87
1.36


11.98
15.57


0.08
0.01


2.05
2.18


0.35
0.20


12.10
23.39


0.43
0.52
Parity
0–1
2–3
4 and above

Reference
1.41
2.91


0.61
1.40


3.27
6.08


0.42
0.004


0.80
1.30


0.14
0.21


4.61
8.00


0.80
0.78
Gestational age (weeks)
24–30
31–34
35–36
37–40
41 and above

Reference
0.83
0.54
0.18
0.18


0.20
0.16
0.06
0.05


3.43
1.87
0.54
0.66


0.80
0.33
0.002
0.01


2.55
3.46
0.97
0.84


0.36
0.61
0.22
0.16


17.88
19.61
4.15
4.38


0.35
0.16
0.96
0.83
Marital status
Single
Married/Divorced
Reference
2.20

0.94

5.15

0.07

2.05

0.79

5.36

0.14
No. foetuses
Single
Multiple

Reference
0.27


0.04


2.02


0.20


0.16


0.02


1.33


0.10
HIV status
Negative
Positive

Reference
2.21


1.09


4.47


0.03


1.79


0.40


7.96


0.44
Antiretroviral therapy
No
Yes

Reference
1.99


1.00


3.97


0.05


1.46


0.71


3.01


0.31
Unbooked
No
Yes

Reference
2.49


1.10


5.63


0.03


0.20


0.01


1.16


0.06
Place of dwelling
Urban
Rural

Reference
4.71


2.30


9.67


<0.0001


4.57


1.87


11.12


0.001

Table 8. Univariate and multivariate analysis between risk factors, blood tests and interventions and composite adverse outcome in PPH.

VariableUnivariate
Odds ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
P-valueMultivariate
Odds ratio
95% Confidence
Interval
P-value
LowerUpperLowerUpper
Previous LSCS
No
Yes

Reference
3.11


1.50


6.42


0.002


2.57


1.10


6.00


0.03
Preeclampsia
No
Yes

Reference
1.51


0.76


3.00


0.24


1.50


0.69


3.28


0.31
APH
No
Yes

Reference
7.08


3.45


14.55


<0.0001


5.45


2.23


13.27


<0.0001
IUD
No
Yes

Reference
5.76


2.66


12.46


<0.0001


2.12


0.79


5.70


0.14
ANC Hb (g/dL)
0–5.99
6–10.99
11 and above

24.89
1.12
Reference
2.63
0.52
235.46
2.43
0.01
0.77
19.64
1.53
1.44
0.61
268.50
3.80
0.03
0.36
Mode of delivery
NVD
LSCS
Vacuum, forceps*
Reference
12.92

5.77

28.93

<0.0001

10.21

4.39

23.74

<0.0001
Birth weight (g)
0–1500
1501–2500
2501–4000
4001 and above

Reference
0.61
0.21
0.18


0.19
0.08
0.01


1.92
0.61
1.08


0.40
0.004
0.06


1.89
0.84
0.38


0.29
012
0.02


12.23
5.65
8.55


0.50
0.85
0.54
Blood loss (ml)
500–1000
1001–1500
1501–2000
2001 and above

Reference
9.95
31.36
86.25


4.02
10.36
22.23


24.67
94.97
334.69


<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001


9.94
41.27
164.77


3.68
11.32
31.06


26.88
150.54
874.25


<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
Post-delivery Hb (g/dL)
0–5.99
6–10.99
11 and above

9.03
2.19
Reference
2.70
0.86
30.21
5.55
<0.0001
0.10
4.73
1.33
0.95
0.42
23.58
4.22
0.06
0.63
Perineal trauma
No
Yes

Reference
0.31


0.07


1.31


0.11


1.16


0.11


12.23


0.90
Uterine atony
No
Yes

Reference
2.20


0.84


5.78


0.11


1.91


0.42


8.73


0.40
Ruptured uterus
No
Yes

Reference
3.81


1.12


12.94


0.03


1.34


0.18


10.13


0.78
Oxytocin drip
No
Yes

Reference
0.39


0.16


0.96


0.04


0.30


0.05


2.01


0.22
Intravenous fluids
No
Yes

Reference
0.45


0.14


1.41


0.17


0.90


0.14


6.03


0.91
Perineal repairs
No
Yes

Reference
2.10


0.03


1.57


0.13


0.43


0.02


8.10


0.58

History of Caesarean section

Women with a prior Caesarean section were statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. Such women were 2.6 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH, compared to women without such history (AOR 2.57, 95% CI 1.10-6.00, p=0.03).

Antepartum haemorrhage

Antepartum haemorrhage (APH) was statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. Women who presented with APH were 5.5 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH compared to women who had no APH (AOR 5.45, 95% CI 2.23-13.27, p<0.0001).

Antenatal haemoglobin count

Antenatal haemoglobin count was also statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. Women with haemoglobin counts of 0–5.99 g/dL were 19.6 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH compared with women with haemoglobin counts of 11 g/dL and above (AOR 19.64, 95% CI 1.44-268.50, p=0.03).

Current delivery by Caesarean section

Current delivery by Caesarean section was statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. Women who had a Caesarean section were 10.2 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH compared to women who delivered vaginally (AOR 10.21, 95% CI 4.39-23.74, p<0.0001).

Blood loss

Blood loss was statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. The odds rose significantly higher as the amount of blood loss increased. Women who lost 1001–1500 ml of blood were 9.9 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes, compared to women that lost 500–1000 ml (AOR 9.94, 95% CI 3.68-26.88, p<0.0001). The odds rose to 41.3 times more like to be associated with composite adverse outcomes in those women who lost 1501–2000ml compared to those women who lost 500–1000 ml (AOR 41.27, 95% CI 11.32-150.54, p<0.0001). Whereas women who lost 2001 ml and above were 164.8 times more likely to be statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH compared to women who lost 500–1000 ml (AOR 164.77, 95% CI 31.06-874.25, p<0.0001.

Discussion

The strengths of this study include the fact that it used a large homogenous cohort of women with PPH that could make the findings generalizable to other places with similar populations in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region where PPH continues to contribute significantly to global mortality and morbidity. Secondly, using data from a single-centre meant that women received standardized care reducing confounding factors. Thirdly, this study is one of the few and unique ones in that it calculated risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of PPH unlike the previous ones that calculated risk factors for PPH. Therefore, the study adds new information on risk factors for composite adverse outcomes.

PPH rates have been reported to be rising in both low-income and high-income countries11,22. Hence PPH will remain an important global subject. There are few studies in the literature that specifically determined risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of primary PPH, rather there are many studies on risk factors for primary PPH.

Rural dwelling was associated with composite adverse outcomes. National governments need to made healthcare accessible to rural women so that the Sustainable Development Goals on Maternal Mortality to reduce global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100 000 live births by 20304, could be achievable.

Women with a prior Caesarean section were associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. The means that women with a prior Caesarean section should receive extra clinical vigilance. Women who had a current Caesarean section were also associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. Women with a prior Caesarean sections, and those with current Caesarean sections should be closely monitored post-operatively to reduce the risks of adverse outcomes.

Antepartum haemorrhage was statistically significantly associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. Low haemoglobin levels were associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. Comparatively, a study in Senegal and Mali by Tort et al. found prepartum severe anemia was associated with maternal mortality in PPH13. This was similar to the findings of this study. Hence anaemia should be screened for antenatally and women should receive treatment so that they enter labour with normal haemoglobin counts. This will also cover up for possible complications like antepartum haemorrhage.

Massive blood loss was as expected associated with composite adverse outcomes of PPH. The amount of blood loss was found to be related to adverse maternal outcomes23. Prompt, effective prevention and management of PPH22, should be the aim to reduce the amount of blood loss and prevent the development of composite adverse outcomes.

The determination of risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of PPH is critical as it could help in reducing the risks of maternal mortality that women with PPH face.

Limitations

Its major limitation is that it was a retrospective, single-centre study that used secondary data. This could limit the generalizability of its findings to other centres of low-resourced settings who may not be using the same management standards or have fewer healthcare personnel.

Conclusions

The independent predictors for composite adverse outcomes of PPH were rural dwelling, a prior Caesarean section, antenatal haemoglobin level, and current delivery by Caesarean section. Blood loss was also an independent predictor for composite adverse outcomes of PPH. All these risk factors are easily identifiable and should be clearly noted by attending clinicians. Crucially, this new information should help in increasing clinical vigilance and preventing maternal deaths especially in low- and middle income countries were PPH mortality is of high prevalence. Regular on-site training of staff can focus on drilling on this important issues and can improve outcomes24.

Data availability

Underlying data

Mendeley Data: Composite adverse outcomes in primary PPH. https://doi.org/10.17632/wjtn8rmgcc.321.

This project contains the following underlying data:

PPH-Data-Share (XLSX). The raw de-identified data gathered from each patient examined in this study.

De-identified individual-level data for all patients.

Extended data

Mendeley Data: Composite adverse outcomes in primary PPH. https://doi.org/10.17632/wjtn8rmgcc.321.

This project contains the following extended data:

  • Data Collection Sheet-PPH (DOCX).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Mar 2020
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Ngwenya S. Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.22769.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 15 Oct 2020
Revised
Views
9
Cite
Reviewer Report 14 Dec 2020
Jaffu O. Chilongola, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Kilimanjaro Clinical Research Institute, Moshi, Tanzania 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 9
The author seems not to accept/adopt most of the changes. This brings the question ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Chilongola JO. Reviewer Report For: Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30195.r73165)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
9
Cite
Reviewer Report 29 Oct 2020
Eba Abdisa, Department of Psychiatry, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Institute of Health Sciences, Wollega University, Nekemte, Ethiopia 
Approved
VIEWS 9
I am happy because the author addressed all of my previous comments. I ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Abdisa E. Reviewer Report For: Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.30195.r73166)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 26 Mar 2020
Views
8
Cite
Reviewer Report 18 Sep 2020
Eba Abdisa, Department of Psychiatry, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Institute of Health Sciences, Wollega University, Nekemte, Ethiopia 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 8
Title:  Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum hemorrhage in a low-resource setting: a single-center cross-sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
  • The title seems interesting, particularly it tried to address the problem of
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Abdisa E. Reviewer Report For: Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25139.r69904)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
12
Cite
Reviewer Report 26 Aug 2020
Michael Johnson Mahande, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Moshi, Tanzania 
Not Approved
VIEWS 12
Risk factors for composite adverse postpartum haemorrhage in a low rsources setting: a single-centre cross sectional study in Mpilo Central Hospital Bulawayo, Zimbabwe.

Section
Comment, question, suggestion.

Abstract
  1. The
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Mahande MJ. Reviewer Report For: Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25139.r64325)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
22
Cite
Reviewer Report 13 Aug 2020
Jaffu O. Chilongola, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre, Kilimanjaro Clinical Research Institute, Moshi, Tanzania 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 22
  1. It is surprising that this manuscript has only one author. This means the lone author did everything from conceiving the ideas, data collection, analysis, writing the manuscript. It has to be confirmed that NO one else has
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Chilongola JO. Reviewer Report For: Risk factors for composite adverse outcomes of postpartum haemorrhage, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9:211 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.25139.r66260)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 15 Oct 2020
    Solwayo Ngwenya, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Box 2096 Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
    15 Oct 2020
    Author Response
    Reviewer 1
    1. It is surprising that this manuscript has only one author. This means the lone author did everything from conceiving the ideas, data collection, analysis, writing the
    ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 15 Oct 2020
    Solwayo Ngwenya, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Mpilo Central Hospital, Bulawayo, Box 2096 Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
    15 Oct 2020
    Author Response
    Reviewer 1
    1. It is surprising that this manuscript has only one author. This means the lone author did everything from conceiving the ideas, data collection, analysis, writing the
    ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Mar 2020
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.