| Methods |
Randomisation achieved by computer‐generated numbers. No details regarding allocation concealment available. |
| Participants |
2023 women delivering at the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore, India. Women with cardiac disease, bronchial asthma, rhesus factor incompatibility, pregnancy‐induced or pregnancy‐aggravated hypertension and caesarean delivery were excluded. |
| Interventions |
Misoprostol 400 mcg orally vs oxytocin 10 IU IM versus ergometrine 0.2 mg IV. |
| Outcomes |
Blood loss, haemoglobin levels, side‐effects.
Blood loss measurement: large plastic bag placed under the buttocks following drainage of amniotic fluid. The blood was then transferred to a measuring jar. |
| Notes |
Management of the third stage: active management. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
"computer generated random numbers." |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Unclear on how the allocation concealment was done. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Unclear on blinding. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
No mention of loss to follow‐up or exclusion after randomisation. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Primary outcomes of the review were reported. |
| Other bias |
Low risk |
Baseline characteristics were similar in all the groups. |
