Mirghafourvand 2013.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial undertaken in Iran.
Participants	120 pregnant women 18‐35 years with a singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation and normal blood pressure who had indication for vaginal delivery. Exclusion criteria were grand multiparity, long‐term induction in first stage of labour (oxytocin administration for at least 12 hours), previous history of caesarean delivery or uterine surgery, uterine myoma, history of heart, liver, renal and brain diseases, history of coagulation disorders and thromboembolic disease, blood disorders, history of diabetes and pre‐eclampsia, PPH and haemorrhage during current pregnancy, placenta praevia, abnormal placenta, multiple pregnancies, macrosomia, polyhydramnios, instrumental delivery or continuous pressure in the fundus of the uterus before the fetal expulsion
Interventions	Intervention group (N = 60) ‐ 1 g TA IV in 200 mL of normal saline over 10 minutes after delivery of the anterior shoulder. Control group (N = 60) ‐ 200 mL normal saline administered in the same manner as above. Both groups got 10 units oxytocin after placenta delivery.
Outcomes	Haemoglobin and haematocrit levels were measured 1‐12 hours before and 12‐24 hours after delivery. Blood loss was measured from fetus delivery until placental delivery and from placental delivery until 2 hours postpartum, blood loss > 500 mL, use of additional uterotonics (20 IU oxytocin in 500 mL of Ringer's lactate, 200 mcg methylergometrine intramuscular and 800 mcg misoprostol rectally, side effects (nausea and dizziness).
Notes	Publsihed in abstract form only in English. The full paper is currently in press in ANZJOG. The data included in meta‐analysis provided by the authors.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Block randomisation, stratified according to number of births (first and second and more childbirths) with block sizes of 4 and 6 and allocation ratio of 1:1.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Opaque sequentially numbered sealed packages.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data assessor, participants and analysts had no knowledge of type of intervention was administered.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data assessor, participants and analysts had no knowledge of type of intervention was administered.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data assessor, participants and analysts had no knowledge of type of intervention was administered.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All outcomes reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol was registered.
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias identified.