Table 1.

Main characteristics of included studies for the evaluation of the effectiveness

Research question	Study design	Study and year	Country	Sample size	Inclusion criteria	Intervention	Control	Main outcome
Q1. Any type of uterine tamponade device vs standard care (individual‐level intervention)	Randomised	Dumont et al. 2017	Benin and Mali	116	PPH due to suspected uterine atony unresponsive to first‐line treatment after vaginal delivery	Condom‐catheter balloon + misoprostol	Misoprostol	Surgical intervention (arterial ligatures, uterine compressive sutures, hysterectomy) or death before discharge
Q2. Inclusion of UBT in an institutional protocol for the management of PPH compared with protocols without UBT (facility‐level intervention)	Randomised	Anger et al. 2019	Uganda, Senegal and Egypt	59 765	Vaginal delivery; delivery at a study hospital or referral to a study hospital for PPH after delivery elsewhere	Condom‐catheter balloon or surgical glove	Standard care	Maternal death or invasive procedures
	Non‐randomised	Laas et al. 2012	France	23 863	PPH due to uterine atony that is unresponsive to sulprostone after a vaginal delivery or caesarean section	Bakri balloon	Oxytocin and sulprostone	Arterial embolisation, conservative surgical procedures (artery ligations and/or uterine compression sutures), and hysterectomy
	Non‐randomised	Revert et al. 2018	France	73 529	Women with PPH from uterine atony unresponsive to sulprostone after a vaginal delivery or a caesarean section	Bakri or ebb balloon	Medical treatment	Arterial embolisation or surgery (pelvic vessel ligation or hysterectomy)