Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19445799›Full record

SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2008

Perineal care.

Chris Kettle, Susan Tohill

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Perineal Lacerations: A Retrospective Study in a Habitual-Risk Public Maternity.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chris KettleUniversity Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Susan Tohill
Royal Stoke University Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOver 85% of women having a vaginal birth suffer some perineal trauma. Spontaneous tears requiring suturing are estimated to occur in at least a third of women in the UK and USA, with anal sphincter tears in 0.5% to 7% of women. Perineal trauma can lead to long-term physical and psychological problems. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of intrapartum surgical and non-surgical interventions on rates of perineal trauma? What are the effects of different methods and materials for primary repair of first- and second-degree tears and episiotomies? What are the effects of different methods and materials for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (third- and fourth-degree tears)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

resultsWe found 38 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

conclusionsIn this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: active pushing, spontaneous pushing, and sustained breath-holding (Valsalva) method of pushing; continuous support during labour; conventional suturing; different methods and materials for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries; episiotomies (midline and mediolateral incisions); epidural analgesia; forceps; methods of delivery ("hands-on" method, "hands poised"); water births; non-suturing of muscle and skin (or perineal skin alone); passive descent in the second stage of labour; positions (supine or lithotomy positions, upright position during delivery); restrictive or routine use of episiotomy; sutures (absorbable synthetic sutures, catgut sutures, continuous sutures, interrupted sutures); and vacuum extraction.

Indexed as

EpisiotomyPerineumAnal CanalDelivery, ObstetricHumansLacerationsObstetric Labor ComplicationsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID19445799
PMCPMC2907946
OpenAlexW4298858937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.