SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2001
Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Development of quality of care indicators from systematic reviews: the case of hospital delivery.Implementation science : IS · 2013Article
- Article
- Article
- Optimising reproductive and child health outcomes by building evidence-based research and practice in South East Asia (SEA-ORCHID): study protocol.BMC medical research methodology · 2007Article
- Evidence-informed obstetric practice during normal birth in China: trends and influences in four hospitals.BMC health services research · 2006Article
- Article
- An overview of systematic reviews of normal labor and delivery management.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchReview
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPubic or perineal shaving is a procedure performed before birth in order to lessen the risk of infection if there is a spontaneous perineal tear or if an episiotomy is performed.
objectivesTo assess the effects of routine perineal shaving on admission in labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes, according to the best available evidence. SEARCH STRATEGY: The register of clinical trials maintained and updated by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. In addition, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was searched. Date of last search: July 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled trials (including quasi randomised) which compared perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving were included in the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials under consideration were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion, without consideration of their results. MAIN
resultsOnly two trials fulfilled the prespecified criteria. In the earlier trial, 389 women were alternately allocated to receive either skin preparation and perineal shaving (control) or clipping of vulval hair only (experimental). In the second trial, which included 150 participants, perineal shaving was compared with the cutting of long hairs for procedures only. The primary outcome for both trials was maternal febrile morbidity. No differences were found (combined odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75, 2.12). In the smaller trial, fewer women who had not been shaved had gram negative bacterial colonisation compared with women who had been shaved (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20, 0.92). REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend perineal shaving for women on admission in labour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.