Comparing the outcomes of physiologic delivery with non-physiologic delivery group.

Nasrin Soufizadeh, Farnaz Zandvakili, Fariba Farhadifar, Fariba Seyedoshohadaie

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in International journal of preventive medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Nasrin SoufizadehDepartment of Gynecology, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Kurdistan, Iran.

Farnaz Zandvakili

Fariba Farhadifar

Fariba Seyedoshohadaie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe main purpose of physiologic delivery is to rely on mother's body for childbirth. In physiologic delivery method pregnant women attend delivery preparation classes and they learn how to overcome fear and pain. This study compares delivery outcomes among women who participated in physiologic delivery with those who had undergone non-physiologic delivery.

methodsAll patients referred for physiologic delivery were assessed. Exclusion criteria were lack of PROM, post date, cephalopelvic disproportion, multi-fetal pregnancy, Meconium stain, blood pressure above 90/140, placenta previa and previous record of cesarean. Data was entered in SPSS 16 software and Fisher and Chi-square tests were used to compare vaginal laceration, episiotomy and Apgar score between two groups.

resultsTwelve out of 73 pregnant women (16.4%) in physiologic delivery group and 27 out of 69 pregnant women (39.1%) in non-physiologic delivery group needed episiotomy (P = 0.002). Ten patients (13.7%) in physiologic delivery group and seven persons (10.1%) in the non-physiologic delivery group were suffering from vaginal laceration (P = 0.51). There was no significant statistical difference between newborns' Apgar score in two groups.

conclusionsPhysiologic delivery can reduce the need for episiotomy without any further complications.

Indexed as

Episiotomynatural vaginal deliveryphysiologic delivery

Identifiers

PMID23930174

PMCPMC3733194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-SA

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.