English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBLAC) compared to objective measurements of menstrual blood loss (MBL), a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until September 30, 2014 was performed. Terms referring to “pictorial blood loss assessment chart,” “menstrual blood loss evaluation,” and “alkaline hematin” were used. The ability of PBLAC to predict significant blood loss, compared to alkaline hematin as a standard objective method, represents our primary outcome. Out of 255 reports identified by the primary search, seven reports were included in the review. Quality of these reports was assessed. Compared to alkaline hematin, PBLAC sensitivity and specificity ranged from 58 to 98 % and 7.5 to 97 %, respectively, with likelihood ratios (LR) for positive ranging from 1.1 to 7.8 and LR for negative tests ranging from 0.04 to 0.48. Diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 2.6 to 86.9. Although diagnostic testing was not always supportive in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and LRs, most studies support the use of PBLAC as a semi-objective method that can be implemented in research and clinical practice.

Pictorial blood loss assessment chart for quantification of menstrual blood loss: a systematic review