Prophylactic tranexamic acid for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage in women with placenta praevia: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, phase 3 trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Prophylactic tranexamic acid for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage in women with placenta praevia: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, phase 3 trial.
Item: Prophylactic tranexamic acid for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage in women with placenta praevia: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, phase 3 trial.
Rating: 59
Author: Αlpha¹

Zhang L, Bi S, Chen L, Du L, He F, Qiao Y, Li Z, Zeng W, Zhao X, Chen X, Li X, Ding G, Zhou W, Sun B, Guo Q, Guo X, Jin F, Wang X, Zhu Q, Sun Q, Jiang S, Wang X, Cai F, Jiang Y, Gao J, Wang Z, Wang Z, Zhang L, Liu JM, Huang L, Yu L, Chen J, Zhang S, Poon LC, Li HT, Chen D, study’s collaborator group

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 5 high issues for “Prophylactic tranexamic acid for the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage in women with placenta praevia: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, phase 3 trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 10, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

ReportingEthical approvals partially met−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced4 types

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps2

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed
Ethics/consent reporting incompleteAssessed

Broken references and links1

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

A methodologically strong, well-conducted randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase 3 trial with rigorous randomisation, blinding, sample size calculation, and transparent reporting including trial registration, outcome disclosure, and proportional conclusions. The main weaknesses are reporting gaps rather than design flaws: no explicit regulatory-compliance (Declaration of Helsinki) statement, data deposited on a GitHub user page without a persistent identifier/DOI, no CONSORT guideline statement, and one reference not found in any registry.

Both reviewers evaluated the full text and agreed on all eight statuses; minor divergence occurred on whether demographics and code-sharing are fully adequate (race/ethnicity and permanent-identifier omissions respectively), which did not change statuses. Statistics verification covered only 2 recomputable tests (partial coverage); N/A dimensions excluded species/housing (human trial) and antibodies/cell lines. Citation check flagged 1 reference not found in any registry; 0 retracted.

8 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks.

Reporting

Eight Dimensions6 pass · 2 warn

The introduction cites prior work (TRAAP, TRAAP2) and explicitly identifies the gap in high-risk populations. The rationale logically links the premise to the study objectives. Limitations of prior research (selective enrolment in low-risk populations) are addressed.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The scientific premise is well established: postpartum hemorrhage is a leading cause of maternal mortality, placenta praevia increases risk, and prior evidence on tranexamic acid in high-risk populations is lacking.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“Notably, previous studies have predominantly enrolled participants from low risk or mixed risk (∼50% unscheduled caesarean delivery) populations. Such selective enrolment has left a critical gap in prophylactic use of tranexamic acid in high risk patients.”

direct quote[Introduction, final sentence]

“Therefore, we conducted a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial to investigate whether tranexamic acid could reduce the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage without increasing the risk of adverse events in women with placenta praevia undergoing caesarean delivery.”