↓ Skip to main content

Restrictive Versus Massive Fluid Resuscitation Strategy (REFILL study), influence on blood loss and hemostatic parameters in obstetric hemorrhage: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Restrictive Versus Massive Fluid Resuscitation Strategy (REFILL study), influence on blood loss and hemostatic parameters in obstetric hemorrhage: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2512-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natascha de Lange, Pim Schol, Marcus Lancé, Mallory Woiski, Josje Langenveld, Robbert Rijnders, Luc Smits, Martine Wassen, Yvonne Henskens, Hubertina Scheepers

Abstract

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is associated with maternal morbidity and mortality and has an increasing incidence in high-resource countries, despite dissemination of guidelines, introduction of skills training, and correction for risk factors. Current guidelines advise the administration, as fluid resuscitation, of almost twice the amount of blood lost. This advice is not evidence-based and could potentially harm patients. All women attending the outpatient clinic who are eligible will be informed of the study; oral and written informed consent will be obtained. Where there is more than 500 ml blood loss and ongoing bleeding, patients will be randomized to care as usual, fluid resuscitation with 1.5-2 times the amount of blood loss or fluid resuscitation with 0.75-1.0 times the blood loss. Blood loss will be assessed by weighing all draping. A blood sample, for determining hemoglobin concentration, hematocrit, thrombocyte concentration, and conventional coagulation parameters will be taken at the start of the study, after 60 min, and 12-18 h after delivery. In a subgroup of women, additional thromboelastometric parameters will be obtained. Our hypothesis is that massive fluid administration might lead to a progression of bleeding due to secondary coagulation disorders. In non-pregnant individuals with massive blood loss, restrictive fluid management has been shown to prevent a progression to dilution coagulopathy. These data, however, cannot be extrapolated to women in labor. Our objective is to compare both resuscitation protocols in women with early, mild PPH (blood loss 500-750 ml) and ongoing bleeding, taking as primary outcome measure the progression to severe PPH (blood loss > 1000 ml). Netherlands Trial Register, NTR 3789 . Registered on 11 January 2013.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Lecturer 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 10 28%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,212,209
of 13,789,144 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#933
of 3,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,658
of 273,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,789,144 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 273,865 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them