Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21069686›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery.

Fidelma O'Mahony, G Justus Hofmeyr, Vijay Menon

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Instruments for assisted vaginal birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Caesarean Delivery Rate Review: An Evidence-Based Analysis.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2015
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Outcomes of the novel Odon Device in indicated operative vaginal birth.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2021
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Cephalhaematoma in Sweden, a Population-Based Register Study.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fidelma O'MahonyAcademic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, ST4 6QG.
G Justus Hofmeyr
Vijay Menon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInstrumental or assisted vaginal birth is commonly used to expedite birth for the benefit of either mother or baby or both. It is sometimes associated with significant complications for both mother and baby. The choice of instrument may be influenced by clinical circumstances, operator choice and availability of specific instruments.

objectivesTo evaluate different instruments in terms of achieving a vaginal birth and avoiding significant morbidity for mother and baby. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of assisted vaginal delivery using different instruments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted the data, and checked them for accuracy. MAIN

resultsWe included 32 studies (6597 women) in this review. Forceps were less likely than the ventouse to fail to achieve a vaginal birth with the allocated instrument (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.94). However, with forceps there was a trend to more caesarean sections, and significantly more third- or fourth-degree tears (with or without episiotomy), vaginal trauma, use of general anaesthesia, and flatus incontinence or altered continence. Facial injury was more likely with forceps (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.12 to 23.25). Using a random-effects model because of heterogeneity between studies, there was a trend towards fewer cases of cephalhaematoma with forceps (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.11).Among different types of ventouse, the metal cup was more likely to result in a successful vaginal birth than the soft cup, with more cases of scalp injury and cephalhaematoma. The hand-held ventouse was associated with more failures than the metal ventouse, and a trend to fewer than the soft ventouse.Overall forceps or the metal cup appear to be most effective at achieving a vaginal birth, but with increased risk of maternal trauma with forceps and neonatal trauma with the metal cup. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is a recognised place for forceps and all types of ventouse in clinical practice. The role of operator training with any choice of instrument must be emphasised. The increasing risks of failed delivery with the chosen instrument from forceps to metal cup to hand-held to soft cup vacuum, and trade-offs between risks of maternal and neonatal trauma identified in this review need to be considered when choosing an instrument.

Indexed as

Obstetrical ForcepsBirth InjuriesCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVacuum Extraction, Obstetrical

Identifiers

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.