Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23160871›Full record

GuidelineInternational urogynecology journal2013

Guidelines for the management of third and fourth degree perineal tears after vaginal birth from the Austrian Urogynecology Working Group.

T Aigmueller, W Umek, K Elenskaia, A Frudinger, J Pfeifer, H Helmer, H Huemer, A Tammaa, M van der Kleyn, K Tamussino and 2 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in International urogynecology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Use of antibiotics in women undergoing correction of an obstetric anal sphincter injury: Results from a national Israeli survey.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Risk factors for severe obstetric perineal lacerations.International urogynecology journal · 2016
    Observational
  7. Article
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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

T AigmuellerDepartment of Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. aigmueller@gmail.com
W Umek
K Elenskaia
A Frudinger
J Pfeifer
H Helmer
H Huemer
A Tammaa
M van der Kleyn
K Tamussino
D Koelle
Austrian Urogynecology Working Group
Medical University of Graz · ATFH JOANNEUM University of Applied Sciences · ATKlinikum Wels-Grieskirchen · ATMedical University of Vienna · ATStadtkrankenhaus Schwabach · DEWilhelminen Hospital · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a decision aid for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with major perineal tears and thus minimize the risk of persistent symptoms. In 2007, the "Guideline for the management of third and fourth degree perineal tears after vaginal birth" was established by members of the Austrian Urogynecologic Working Group (AUB). The guideline was updated in 2011, including literature published up to 30 November 2011. The DELPHI method was used to reach consensus. Evidence-based and consensus-based statements were defined for epidemiology, risk factors, classification, diagnosis, surgery, and follow-up of major perineal lacerations at vaginal birth.

Indexed as

AustriaFecal IncontinenceFemaleHumansLacerationsObstetric Labor ComplicationsPerineumPostpartum PeriodPregnancySoft Tissue Injuries

Identifiers

PMID23160871
OpenAlexW2079389590

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.