Skip to main content
PMC home page
Scientific Reports logoLink to Scientific Reports
. 2017 Jan 9;7:40320. doi: 10.1038/srep40320

Prevalence of antepartum hemorrhage in women with placenta previa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dazhi Fan 1,2,*, Song Wu 3,*, Li Liu 2,4, Qing Xia 2, Wen Wang 1, Xiaoling Guo 1,a, Zhengping Liu 1,b
PMCID: PMC5220286  PMID: 28067303

Abstract

Antepartum hemorrhage (APH) is an important cause of perinatal mortality and maternal morbidity in pregnant women with placenta previa in the world. However, the epidemiological characteristics are not completely understood. We performed an initial systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of APH in pregnant women with placenta previa. It was totally performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis statement. PubMed, Elsevier Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library were searched before April 2016. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model based on a proportions approach was performed to determine the prevalence. Stratified analyses, meta-regression method, and sensitivity analysis were utilized to analyze the heterogeneity. A total of 29 articles were included. The pooled overall prevalence of APH among pregnant women with placenta previa was 51.6% (95% CI 42.7–60.6) in a heterogeneous set of studies (I2 = 97.9). Correlation analysis found that there was a positive correlation between prevalence and percentage of multiparous (r = 0.534, P = 0.027) and a negative correlation between prevalence and survey year (r = −0.400, P = 0.031). In conclusion, the prevalence of APH was a high condition among pregnant women with placenta previa.

Antepartum hemorrhage (APH) defined as bleeding from the genital tract in the second half of pregnancy, is still an important cause of perinatal mortality and maternal morbidity in the world1. It is found that there is a strong relationship between APH and later development of intrapartum bleeding necessitating cesarean delivery2. Some women necessitate preterm cesarean section and hysterectomy for life-threatening APH, whereas others undergo elective cesarean section at term without hemorrhagic complications. In addition to unknown origin, the major causes of APH are placenta previa and abruption placenta3. Placenta previa is one of the most serious complications during pregnancy and is associated with numerous adverse maternal and fetal-neonatal complications. Many of these are direct consequences of maternal antepartum and intrapartum hemorrhage4. It was reported that the prevalence of APH in pregnant women with placenta previa are at an approximately ten times greater than that non-placenta previa women5. Importantly, the prevalence of placenta previa has been rising in parallel with the increasing rate of cesarean delivery and varies throughout the world and it has become a serious public health problem worldwide6,7.

Although APH is common in pregnant women with placenta previa, it has not been extensively studied. Studies have suggested that pregnant women with placenta previa experience higher rates of APH than the general women2,8,9. However, estimates of the prevalence vary across studies, from 20% to 90%10,11. The prevalence may vary due to the maternal age, previa location (anterior vs. posterior), previa types (complete vs. incomplete), the nature of the population studied, lifestyle habits, the use of different diagnosis criteria, and other potential characteristics12,13,14,15.

A reliable estimate of APH in placenta previa is important for informing efforts to prevent, treat, and identify causes of APH among pregnant women with placenta previa and would contribute to the planning and implantation of relevant public health strategies. Against this background, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies of APH to estimate the prevalence of APH among pregnant women with placenta previa.

Results

Search Results and Characteristics

The detailed steps of the systematic review and meta-analysis process were given as a PRISMA and the identifying eligible studies were summarized in Fig. 1. Twenty-five retrospective and four prospective cohort studies involving a total of 4687 individuals were included in the study (Table 1). Fourteen15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28 took place in Asia, eight5,29,30,31,32,33,34,35 in North America, six10,11,36,37,38,39 in Europe, and one40 in Africa. The articles were published between 1985 and 2016, and the median number of participants per study was 162 (range, 40–703). When evaluated by STROBE quality assessment criteria, three studies received 9 points, eight received 8 points, eleven received 7 points, and seven received 6 points. The quality scores show that in general, and the studies considered to be of acceptable quality.

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart showing the study selection process.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Table 1. Selected characteristics of the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Source Country Survey Period Cases Total Prevalence (%)[95% CI] Age (year)* GA (week)* AP PCS MP Study QS
Wortman AC29 USA 2002–2012 71 98 72.4 (63.6,81.3) 30.8 ± 6.1 38.1 ± 2.3 18 21 80 Rep 8
Shin JE16 Korea 2010–2014 49 93 52.7 (42.5,62.8) 35.5 ± 4.2 37.0 ± 2.4 14 23 53 Rep 7
Kollmann M36 Austria 1993–2012 68 328 20.7 (16.3,25.1) 31.6 (17–46) 35.6 (23–41) — — 187 Pro 8
Goto M17 Japan 2009–2014 55 99 55.6 (45.8,65.3) 35.5 (25–49) — 15 15 49 Pro 8
Sekiguchi A28 Japan 2004–2012 58 162 35.8 (28.4,43.2) 33.5 ± 4.4 37.4 (17–38) 31 19 94 Rep 9
Curti A30 USA 2001–2010 17 43 39.5 (24.9,54.1) 33.8 (25–44) 37.1 (28–40) — 11 22 Rep 7
Giambattista E37 Italy 2006–2010 79 247 32.0 (26.2,37.8) 35.5 ± 4.8 — — 51 — Rep 6
Fukushima K18 Japan 2006–2010 33 80 41.2 (30.5,52.0) 33.5 (23–43) 37.0 (28–38) 5 12 — Rep 6
Fishman SG31 USA 2002–2010 51 113 45.1 (36.0,54.3) — 36.0 (34–37) 33 19 66 Rep 6
Zaitoun MM40 Egypt 2008–2010 22 65 33.8 (22.3,45.3) 31.3 ± 4.4 34.2 ± 2.4 — 21 22 Rep 6
Suknikhom W19 Thailand 2006–2008 110 206 53.4 (46.6,60.2) 33.4 ± 4.6 — 71 39 99 Rep 8
Mimura T20 Japan 2000–2008 67 115 58.3 (49.2,67.3) 33.4 ± 4.3 35.2 ± 2.4 9 12 — Rep 7
Hasegawa J21 Japan 2000–2009 102 182 56.0 (48.8,63.3) 33.6 (23–43) 36 (22–37) 24 — — Rep 7
Stafford IA32 USA 2007–2009 32 68 47.1 (35.2,58.9) 31.9 ± 5.8 — 32 35 63 Rep 8
Vergani P10 Italy 2003–2008 19 95 20.0 (12.0,28.0) 34.2 ± 4.1 36.8 ± 3.6 46 — 49 Rep 9
Ghi T38 Italy 2005–2007 29 60 48.3 (35.7,61.0) 34.9 ± 4.5 34.7 ± 2.3 — 49 31 Pro 8
Bahar A22 Saudi Arabia 1996–2005 236 306 77.1 (72.4,81.8) 30.6 (16–49) — — 165 — Rep 6
Oya A23 Japan 1993–2007 66 129 51.2 (42.5,59.8) 32.1 ± 5.0 35.9 ± 2.9 — 16 66 Rep 7
Matsubara S24 Japan 1994–2005 18 73 24.7 (14.8,34.5) 31.4 (28–34) 37 (36–39) — 9 36 Rep 7
Tuzovic L11 Croatia 1992–2001 181 202 89.6 (85.4,93.8) — — 65 20 146 Rep 8
Love CD39 UK 1994–2000 129 161 80.1 (74.0,86.3) — 36.4 ± 5.9 — — — Rep 7
Bhat SM15 Oman 1998–2002 35 58 60.3 (47.8,72.9) 30.6 ± 5.9 35.0 ± 3.4 — 8 48 Rep 7
Ogueh O33 Canada 1997–1999 162 703 23.0 (19.9,26.2) 31.3 ± 4.8 39.4 ± 1.8 — 81 — Rep 6
Dola CP34 USA 1990–1997 137 175 78.3 (72.2,84.4) 30.8 ± 5.7 35.3 ± 3.5 62 68 — Rep 9
Ghourab S25 Saudi Arabia 1995–2000 37 71 52.1 (40.5,63.7) 29.5 ± 3.8 35.2 ± 4.3 40 — — Pro 7
Lam CM26 China 1991–1997 159 252 63.1 (57.1,69.1) 31.5 ± 4.6 32.6 ± 4.9 — 32 — Rep 8
Crane JM5 Canada 1988–1995 205 308 66.6 (61.3,71.8) 30.0 — — — 234 Rep 7
Dawson WB35 Canada 1991–1993 21 40 52.5 (37.0,68.0) 29.0 ± 5.0 — — — — Rep 6
Gorodeski IG27 Israel 1973–1983 99 155 63.9 (56.3,71.4) — — — 18 — Rep 7
Open in a new tab

AP: placenta on anterior wall; GA: gestational age; MP: multiperous; PCS: previous cesarean section; Pro: prospective cohort study; QS: quality score; Rep: retrospective cohort study.

*Values indicate the mean (range), or mean ± standard deviation.

Overall prevalence

Meta-analytic pooling of the prevalence estimates of APH reported by the 29 studies yielded a summary prevalence of 51.6% (2347/4687 individuals, 95% CI, 42.7–60.6%), with significant evidence of between study heterogeneity (Q = 1345.19, P < 0.001, I2 = 97.9%) (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Forest plot of pooled estimated prevalence of APH with 95% CI.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

To confirm the stability and liability of the meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis was performed by calculating pooled APH prevalence again when any single study was deleted. Figure 3 showed that the corresponding pooled prevalence varied from 50.2% (42.0–58.5%) (when excluding Tuzovic L. et al.11) to 52.8% (44.0–61.6%) (when excluding Kollmann M. et al.36) and was not substantially altered. The statistically similar results reported that each single study didn’t influence the stability of overall APH prevalence estimate in this meta-analysis. Although visual inspection of the funnel plot revealed slightly asymmetry (Fig. 4), both Begg’s test (z = 1.33, P = 0.183) and Egg’s test (t = 0.41, P = 0.688) showed no potential risk of publication bias.

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis for individual studies on the summary effect.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Figure 4. Funnel plot of the 29 studies included in the meta-analysis.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Subgroup results

To provide a range of the APH prevalence estimates identified by the study design, estimates were stratified by retrospective and prospective cohort study. Summary prevalence estimates ranged from 52.8% for the retrospective study (2158/4129 individuals, 95% CI, 43.3–62.4%, I2 = 97.9%) to 43.8% for the prospective cohort study (189/558 individuals, 95% CI, 23.0–64.7%, I2 = 95.4%). Although studies by retrospective yielded higher than prospective (52.8% vs. 43.8%), there were no significant differences between estimates made using the retrospective and prospective cohort study (95% CI, 43.3–62.4% vs. 95% CI 23.0–64.7%), suggesting that variation between study design did not explain the heterogeneity in the observed APH prevalence estimates.

When evaluated by geographic region, the mean prevalence was high in Asia (53.4%, 1124/1981 individuals, 95% CI, 45.8–61.0%, I2 = 92.0%), intermediate in North America (53.2%, 696/1548 individuals, 95% CI, 34.1–72.2%, I2 = 98.3%) and Europe (48.5%, 505/1093 individuals, 95% CI, 20.3–76.7%, I2 = 99.3%), and low in Africa (33.8%, 22/65 individuals, 95% CI, 22.3–45.3%). In contrast, there were significant differences between Asia and Africa (95% CI, 45.8–61.0% vs. 95% CI 22.3–45.3%).

Meta-regression

A high level of heterogeneity between studies and subgroups was observed. Meta-regression was carried out to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Maternal age, gestational week, year of data collection, quality score, and percentage of anterior placenta, previous cesarean section, and multiparous, which may be potential sources of heterogeneity, were all tested by meta-regression method.

The results of meta-regression were given in Table 2. Through the regression model, except for survey year (P = 0.033) and percentage of multiparous (P = 0.029), none of aforementioned variables was significantly associated with the detected heterogeneity. We, therefore, further tested the correlation between APH prevalence and potential sources. It was found that there was a positive correlation between APH prevalence and percentage of multiparous (r = 0.534, P = 0.027) and a negative correlation between APH prevalence and survey year (r = −0.400, P = 0.031) (Table 3 and Fig. 5).

Table 2. Results of meta-regression for the prevalence of antepartum hemorrhage.

Covariate coefficient 95% CI t-value P-value
Age (year) −0.0267 −0.0642–0.0108 −1.47 0.155
GA (week) −0.0377 −0.0963–0.0209 −1.35 0.193
Survey year −0.0101 −0.0191–0.0009 −2.25 0.033
AP −0.1271 −0.8381–0.5839 −0.39 0.704
PCS 0.1093 −0.3571–0.5757 0.49 0.630
MP 0.6584 0.0791–1.2377 2.42 0.029
QS 0.0211 −0.0567–0.0988 0.56 0.583
Open in a new tab

AP: placenta on anterior wall; GA: gestational age; MP: multiperous; PCS: previous cesarean section; QS: quality score.

Table 3. The correlation between the mean prevalence and potential sources.

Covariate Age (year) GA (week) Survey year AP PCS MP QS
r −0.294 −0.301 −0.400 0.281 0.216 0.534 0.108
P 0.154 0.1975 0.031 0.330 0.334 0.031 0.578
Open in a new tab

AP: placenta on anterior wall; GA: gestational age; MP: multiperous; PCS: previous cesarean section; QS: quality score.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

The correlation between APH prevalence and percentage of multiparous (A) and survey year (B).

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 studies involving 4687 pregnant women with placenta previa demonstrated that between 20% and 78% of women screened positive for antepartum hemorrhage (APH). The pooled estimated of the prevalence showed that more than half (51.6%) of pregnant women experience APH. Finding from this study demonstrated that APH was an important problem for pregnant women with placenta previa, and showed wide variation in the prevalence between studies.

To our knowledge, this review was the first time to conduct a meta-analysis reporting APH prevalence in pregnant women with placenta previa. Characteristics of studies that might affect these estimates were further investigated in this study. The pooled risk estimates indicated that survey year and multiparous were significantly associated with the APH prevalence for pregnant women with placenta previa. Given the high heterogeneity, it was best to consider the confidence interval rather than the pooled result. Because the development of APH has been involved in a higher risk of future delivery and greater long-term morbidity, these findings may affect the long-term health of obstetricians.

APH is a major cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality complicating 2–5% of all pregnancies2. It is linked to an increased risk of emergency cesarean section, need for blood transfusion, maternal intensive care unit admission, hysterectomy, septicemia, thrombophlebitis, and even maternal death29,41. It may occur from the placental site, lesions of the cervix or vagina and occasionally fetal in origin1,2. The major causes of APH are placenta previa and abruption placenta. Other risk factors include marginal sinus bleeding, vasa previa, cord velamentous insertion, battledore placenta, cervicitis, genital trauma, tumours, infections, and coagulation defects20,30,42.

As the chief cause of APH in late pregnancy, the overall prevalence of placenta previa has been recently estimated to be approximately 5 per 1000 pregnancies by world region7. Women with placenta previa are at an approximately 4-fold increased risk of second trimester vaginal bleeding42 and some women necessitate preterm cesarean section and hysterectomy for life-threatening hemorrhage. The prevalence of APH reported in studies was considerably different among different countries in pregnant women with placenta previa. It was reported that the prevalence was 89.6% in Croatia11, 66.6% in Canada5, whereas the data was only 33.8% in Egypt40. In prospective studies, the prevalence of APH was 20.7%, 48.3%, 52.1%, and 55.6% in Austria36, Italy38, Saudi Arabia25, and Japan17, respectively. When assessed by geographic region, the prevalence was high in Asia (53.4%), intermediate in North America (53.2%) and Europe (48.5%), and low in Africa (33.8%) in this meta-analysis. In contrast, there were significant differences between Asia and Africa. However, the unbalanced distribution of studies (Asia: 14 and Africa: 1) would be undermined the statistical analyses, so it should be cautious and best to consider the confidence interval rather than the pooled result.

Differences among prevalence estimates in different countries in women with placenta previa may be due to a number of factors. For instance, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics17,29,36, cultural terms22, lifestyles26 and health statuses27 vary greatly between countries at different stages of development. Evidence has existed that normal gestational length was longer in white European than Black and Asian in nulliparous women with singleton live fetuses at the time of spontaneous labour43. With the increase of gestational age, the risk of APH will increase in pregnant women with placenta previa. It has been observed that the mean gestational age was only 34.2 weeks in placenta previa women in Egypt40. In addition, survey year5, sampling source and methods10,38, and sample size22,35 have a profound influence on the prevalence of APH.

Short cervical length, sponge-like echo in the cervix, placenta lacunae, and the lack of a clear zone are currently regarded as risk factors for APH. The APH incidence appears to have increased in relationship to the increasing rate of endometrial damage in pregnant women. Risk factors for endometrial damage include increasing maternal parity, induced labor, artificial abortion and the number of previous cesarean deliveries. This may explain why the positive correlation was found between APH prevalence and percentage of multiparous in placenta previa in our study. However, similarly result was not found in percentage of previous cesarean section. This discrepancy could reflect a lack of statistical power in this system review owing to the small number of studies.

The purpose of this study was to explore the overall prevalence of APH in pregnant women with placenta previa from 1985 through 2016. Interestingly, it was found that a negative correlation between APH prevalence and survey year. It does mean that as time goes on the mean prevalence will be becoming progressively decreased through epidemiological study. Although this review and meta-analysis have not been considered, we speculate that the main reasons for the decreased rate of APH may be the national health care systems and the improvement in diagnostic techniques and obstetric practice. Compared with fragile health care systems, strong health care systems can provide safe, timely, and appropriate cesarean delivery which is required to ensure optimal maternal and neonatal health outcomes in comprehensive emergency obstetric44. Since 2011, it was recommended that women with placenta previa with previous bleeding events should be admitted at or after 34 weeks’ gestation by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists12. The recommendation will decrease the risk of gestational complications (including APH) in pregnant women with placenta previa. However, the exact reasons that may explain this trend need confirmed in future studies.

The systematic review and meta-analysis included 29 studies with a 4687 individuals, and it showed no potential risk of publication bias. The overall quality of the studies included was all acceptable. And, the result of sensitivity analysis was not substantially altered. Nevertheless, limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the findings of this study. Firstly, just 29 articles were included in this meta-analysis, and only one study from Africa. The variability of sample size and unbalanced distribution of studies would be undermined the statistical analyses and estimation of the prevalence at global scale, so it should be cautious and best to consider the confidence interval rather than the pooled result. Secondly, most of publications (25/29) included in this study were retrospective observational studies, which were considered moderate evidence, and so the conclusions drawn in this analysis were restricted by this study type. Thirdly, significant heterogeneity was observed in the study, which was not surprising as heterogeneity often exists in such meta-analysis of overall prevalence45,46,47. Although subgroup and meta-regression analyses did indicate geographic region, survey year, and percentage of multiparous to explain the observed heterogeneity, the remainder among the studies could be unexplained by the variables examined. We propose that other factors, such as lifestyle habits, alcohol or coffee consumption, mental and physical inactivity may influence APH heterogeneity. Further analyses could not be performed, because of the limited information on these aspects. Finally, the results relied on aggregated published data. Further large-scale, multicenter prospective study using a single validated measured of APH in a random subset of participants would provide a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of APH in women with placenta previa.

In summary, in this systematic review, the summary estimate of the prevalence of APH among women with placenta previa was 51.9%, ranging from 20% to 78% depending on the studies. Further research is needed to identify effective strategies for preventing and treating APH among women with placenta previa.

Methods

This study used standard methods for systematic reviews and meta-analysis of observational studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and the Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) statements. The systematic review protocol has been published in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of systematic reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), and the registration number is CRD4201603782348.

Search strategy and selection criteria

The following online computer databases were searched: MEDLINE, Elsevier Science Direct, and the Cochrane Library using the subject terms: “placenta previa”, “Low-lying placenta”, “PP”, “hemorrhage”, “haemorrhage”, “vaginal bleeding”, “antepartum”. Relevant literature was also hand searched and identified based on the reference lists of original and review articles already deemed eligible for inclusion. The search language was limited to English, and the search was updated in April 2016. APH was defined as bleeding occurring after 20 weeks of gestation until delivery. The studies were included in our analysis if they meet the following criteria: studies either provided the number of cases of APH and sample size of pregnant women with placenta previa or sufficient information of crude prevalence of APH; and articles were published in English. The studies were excluded based on the following criteria: case series, letters, reviews and editorials; or the full data was not accessible even after request from the corresponding author. If multiple publications covered the same population, the most detailed one reporting the largest sample size was considered.

Data extraction

After initial evaluation, two trained investigators (DF and SW) independently and carefully evaluated the articles and performed the data extraction according to a standardized form. The following variables were extracted: first author, publication year, study design (as defined by the original article), study period, geographic region, number or percentage of potential characteristics (previous cesarean sections, multiparous, anterior position of placenta), maternal age and gestational week at delivery (mean ± standard deviation or median, range), the number of APH and the total sample size. When discrepancies existed, discussion was performed or via consultation with another reviewer (QX) until a consensus was reached. When there were several involving the same population, only the most comprehensive publication was included. If necessary, the corresponding author of the published studies was contacted to provide relevant information for our analysis.

Methodological quality assessment

The Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline was used to assess the methodological quality of each study included in systematic reviews and meta-analysis by two independently investigators (DF and QX)49. The items included five core components including sample population, sample size, participation rate, outcome assessment, and analytical methods to control for bias. Briefly, the item is assessed by scoring (low risk = 2, moderate risk = 1, high risk and unclear = 0) each bias type for each publication and the total score is used as the summary assessment of risk of bias. Detailed STROBE quality assessment. The total score, ranged from 0 to 10, represented the summary assessment of bias risk for each study and was used to assess the risk of bias for the individual studies46. When there was a disagreement, it was solved by consensus of the whole team.

Statistical Analysis

Individual and pooled incidence and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for each of all the included studies using the STATA 12.0 (Stata-Corp, College Station, TX, USA). Before performed an inverse-variance weighted, prevalence was transformed via the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine method50. The pooling prevalence estimates using random-effects meta-analysis that accounted for between-study heterogeneity. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by the chi-square test on Q statistic, which was quantified by the I-square values, assuming that I-square values 25, 50 and 75% were nominally assigned as low, moderate, and high estimates, respectively51. To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity, stratified analyses and meta-regression were performed to find any possible sources using the following grouping variables: study design (retrospective vs. prospective), geographic region, study period, maternal age, gestational week, percentage of potential characteristics (previous cesarean sections, multiparous, and anterior position of placenta) and study quality. Sensitivity analysis was also performed by excluding each study at a time to assess whether one or more studies influenced the overall results. Publication bias was assessed first by visually inspecting the distribution of observed studies on a funnel plot52. Then, Begg’s rank correlation test53 and Egger’s linear regression54 were utilized to quantify the degree of bias illustrated in the funnel plot. And P ≤ 0.05 was indicated the presence of statistically significant.

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Fan, D. et al. Prevalence of antepartum hemorrhage in women with placenta previa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 40320; doi: 10.1038/srep40320 (2017).

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the efforts of all the researchers whose articles were included in this study. Thanks to Guo Tian, from the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, helps us conceive the study.

Footnotes

Author Contributions Z.P.L. and X.L.G. participated in the design and coordination of the study. D.Z.F. conceived the study, and drafting the manuscript. S.W. and Q.X. searched for the studies, collected and analyzed the data. W.W. participated in the design of this study and edited the manuscript. L.L. did the data management and analyzed the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

  1. Giordano R. et al. Antepartum haemorrhage. J Prenat Med. 4, 12–6 (2010). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Sinha P. & Kuruba N. Ante-partum haemorrhage: an update. J Obstet Gynaecol. 28, 377–81 (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chan C. C. & To W. W. Antepartum hemorrhage of unknown origin–what is its clinical significance? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 78, 186–90 (1999). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Silver R. M. Abnormal Placentation: Placenta Previa, Vasa Previa, and Placenta Accreta. Obstet Gynecol. (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Crane J. M. et al. Maternal complications with placenta previa. Am J Perinatol. 17, 101–5 (2000). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Downes K. L. et al. Previous prelabor or intrapartum cesarean delivery and risk of placenta previa. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 212, 669.e1–6 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cresswell J. A. et al. Prevalence of placenta praevia by world region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health. 18, 712–24 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Miller E. S. et al. Does the presence of placental basal plate myometrial fibres increase the risk of subsequent morbidly adherent placenta: a case-control study. BJOG. (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Getahun D. et al. Previous cesarean delivery and risks of placenta previa and placental abruption. Obstet Gynecol. 107, 771–8 (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Vergani P. et al. Placenta previa: distance to internal os and mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 201, 266 e1–5 (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Tuzovic L. Complete versus incomplete placenta previa and obstetric outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 93, 110–7 (2006). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pivano A. et al. A score to predict the risk of emergency caesarean delivery in women with antepartum bleeding and placenta praevia. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 195, 173–176 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Young B. C. et al. Does previa location matter? Surgical morbidity associated with location of a placenta previa. J Perinatol. 34, 264–7 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Daskalakis G. et al. Impact of placenta previa on obstetric outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 114, 238–41 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bhat S. M. et al. Placenta previa in a referral hospital in Oman. Saudi Med J. 25, 728–31 (2004). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Shin J. E. et al. Serial Change in Cervical Length for the Prediction of Emergency Cesarean Section in Placenta Previa. PLoS One. 11, e0149036 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Goto M. et al. Placenta previa with early opening of the uterine isthmus is associated with high risk of bleeding during pregnancy, and massive haemorrhage during caesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 201, 7–11 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fukushima K. et al. Cervical length predicts placental adherence and massive hemorrhage in placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 38, 192–7 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Suknikhom W. & Tannirandorn Y. Previous uterine operation and placenta previa. J Med Assoc Thai. 94, 272–7 (2011). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mimura T. et al. Correlation between the cervical length and the amount of bleeding during cesarean section in placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 37, 830–5 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hasegawa J. et al. Can ultrasonography of the placenta previa predict antenatal bleeding? J Clin Ultrasound. 39, 458–62 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Bahar A. et al. Risk factors and pregnancy outcome in different types of placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 31, 126–31 (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Oya A. et al. Risk factors for peripartum blood transfusion in women with placenta previa: a retrospective analysis. J Nippon Med Sch. 75, 146–51 (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Matsubara S. et al. Blood loss in low-lying placenta: placental edge to cervical internal os distance of less vs. more than 2 cm. J Perinat Med. 36, 507–12 (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ghourab S. Third-trimester transvaginal ultrasonography in placenta previa: does the shape of the lower placental edge predict clinical outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 18, 103–8 (2001). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lam C. M. et al. Women with placenta praevia and antepartum haemorrhage have a worse outcome than those who do not bleed before delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol. 20, 27–31 (2000). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gorodeski I. G. et al. Placenta previa–the identification of low- and high-risk subgroups. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 20, 133–43 (1985). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sekiguchi A. et al. Type and location of placenta previa affect preterm delivery risk related to antepartum hemorrhage. Int J Med Sci. 10, 1683–8 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Wortman A. C. et al. Bleeding complications in pregnancies with low-lying placenta. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 29, 1367–71 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Curti A. et al. Cervical length and risk of antepartum hemorrhage in presence of low-lying placenta. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 26, 563–5 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Fishman S. G. et al. Risk factors for preterm delivery with placenta previa. J Perinat Med. 40, 39–42 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Stafford I. A. et al. Ultrasonographic cervical length and risk of hemorrhage in pregnancies with placenta previa. Obstet Gynecol. 116, 595–600 (2010). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ogueh O. et al. Obstetric implications of low-lying placentas diagnosed in the second trimester. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 83, 11–17 (2003). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Dola C. P. et al. Placenta previa: does its type affect pregnancy outcome? Am J Perinatol. 20, 353–60 (2003). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Dawson W. B. et al. Translabial ultrasonography and placenta previa: does measurement of the os-placenta distance predict outcome? J Ultrasound Med. 15, 441–6 (1996). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kollmann M. et al. Placenta praevia: incidence, risk factors and outcome. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 29, 1395–8 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Giambattista E. et al. Predicting factors for emergency peripartum hysterectomy in women with placenta previa. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 285, 901–6 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ghi T. et al. Cervical length and risk of antepartum bleeding in women with complete placenta previa. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 33, 209–12 (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Love C. D. et al. Major placenta praevia should not preclude out-patient management. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 117, 24–9 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Zaitoun M. M. et al. Does cervical length and the lower placental edge thickness measurement correlates with clinical outcome in cases of complete placenta previa? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 284, 867–73 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Mastrolia S. A. et al. Placenta previa associated with severe bleeding leading to hospitalization and delivery: a retrospective population-based cohort study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 1–5 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rosenberg T. et al. Critical analysis of risk factors and outcome of placenta previa. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 284, 47–51 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Patel R. R. et al. Does gestation vary by ethnic group? A London-based study of over 122,000 pregnancies with spontaneous onset of labour. Int J Epidemiol. 33, 107–13 (2004). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Molina G. et al. Maternal and Neonatal Mortality After Cesarean Delivery–Reply. JAMA. 315, 2017 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mata D. A. et al. Prevalence of Depression and Depressive Symptoms Among Resident Physicians: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. 314, 2373–83 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang W. et al. The prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia in mainland China: evidence from epidemiological surveys. Sci Rep. 5, 13546 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Jones L. et al. Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. The Lancet. 380, 899–907 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Fan D. et al. Incidence of antepartum hemorrhage in women with placenta previa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016037823 Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016037823 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. von Elm E. et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 370, 1453–7 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Freeman M. F. & Tukey J. W. Transformations Related to the Angular and the Square Root. Ann Math Stats. 21, 607–611 (1950). [Google Scholar]
  51. Fan D. et al. Association between KIR polymorphisms and ankylosing spondylitis in populations: a meta-analysis. Mod Rheumatol. 24, 985–91 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Fan D. et al. Male sexual dysfunction and ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and metaanalysis. J Rheumatol. 42, 252–7 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Egger M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 315, 629–34 (1997). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Begg C. B. & Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 50, 1088–101 (1994). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES