Moertl 2011

Methods	2‐arm active‐controlled double‐blinded randomised trial.
Participants	Between January 2008 and July 2008, 84 parturients were randomised in a hospital setting in Austria. The population comprised women of unspecified parity, a singleton pregnancy, at high risk for PPH, who delivered by elective caesarean section. Exclusion criteria comprised parturients requiring general anaesthesia, or those with placenta praevia, placental abruption, multiple pregnancy, pre‐eclampsia, gestational diabetes, pre‐existing insulin‐dependent diabetes, cardiovascular/renal disorders, hypo‐/hyperthyroidism or women on cardiovascular system medications.
Interventions	100 mcg of carbetocin administered by an intravenous bolus (n = 28) versus 5 IU of oxytocin administered by an intravenous bolus (n = 28). There were 28 exclusions post randomisation but it was unclear from which group.
Outcomes	The study recorded the following outcomes: additional uterotonics. change in Hb level, nausea, headache.
Notes	Contact with study authors for additional information: yes. Additional data from authors: no.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was performed by a computer‐generated randomisation sequence in a 1:1 ratio with blocks of 10 and no stratification.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment was not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Study medication was double‐blinded to the clinical staff (obstetricians as well as anaesthesiologists) and the technicians performing the measurements."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Assessors were blinded to treatment allocations.
Objective assessment of blood loss	Unclear risk	Investigators did not evaluate blood loss.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	After randomisation, investigators excluded 28 women from analysis for technical problems (n = 15), change to general anaesthesia (n = 9), recording artefacts (n = 3) and patient withdrawal (n = 1).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study report matches the study protocol that was registered (EudraCT 2007‐005498‐78).
Intention to treat analysis	High risk	Not all study participants were included in the analysis.
Funding source	Low risk	CNSystems Medizintechnik AG in Graz, Austria provided the Task Force® Monitor 3040i system used to measure haemodynamic parameters. No other external funding was required for the study.