Trial reportBMC medicine2013
Perineal Assessment and Repair Longitudinal Study (PEARLS): a matched-pair cluster randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Varying Incidence and Definitions of Infection and Wound Dehiscence After Second-Degree Tear or Episiotomy: A Systematic Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of education and training programmes to help clinicians assess and classify perineal tears: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcomes and outcome measures in childbirth perineal trauma research: a systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2021Pooled it
- Offline Digital Education for Postregistration Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Effectiveness of a smartphone app on improving immunization of children in rural Sichuan Province, China: a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2016Trial
- Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010-2023.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Review
- A Catastrophic Outcome of Ineffectual Episiotomy Causing Acquired Vaginal Atresia: A Case Report.Cureus · 2023Article
- Evaluation of training programme uptake in an attempt to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injuries: the SUPPORT programme.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Opportunities, challenges and concerns for the implementation and uptake of pelvic floor muscle assessment and exercises during the childbearing years: protocol for a critical interpretive synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Implementation of effective practices in health facilities: a systematic review of cluster randomised trials.BMJ global health · 2017Article
- "A patchwork of services"--caring for women who sustain severe perineal trauma in New South Wales--from the perspective of women and midwives.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerineal trauma during childbirth affects millions of women worldwide every year. The aim of the Perineal Assessment and Repair Longitudinal Study (PEARLS) was to improve maternal clinical outcomes following childbirth through an enhanced cascaded multiprofessional training program to support implementation of evidence-based perineal management.
methodsThis was a pragmatic matched-pair cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) that enrolled women (n = 3681) sustaining a second-degree perineal tear in one of 22 UK maternity units (clusters), organized in 11 matched pairs. Units in each matched pair were randomized to receive the training intervention either early (group A) or late (group B). Outcomes within each cluster were assessed prior to any training intervention (phase 1), and then after the training intervention was given to group A (phase 2) and group B (phase 3). Focusing on phase 2, the primary outcome was the percentage of women who had pain on sitting or walking at 10 to 12 days post-natal. Secondary outcomes included use of pain relief at 10 to 12 days post-natal, need for suture removal, uptake and duration of exclusive breastfeeding, and perineal wound infection. Practice-based measures included implementation of evidence into practice to promote effective clinical management of perineal trauma. Cluster-level paired t-tests were used to compare groups A and B.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the clusters in phase 2 of the study in the average percentage of women reporting perineal pain on sitting and walking at 10 to 12 days (mean difference 0.7%; 95% CI -10.1% to 11.4%; P = 0.89). The intervention significantly improved overall use of evidence-based practice in the clinical management of perineal trauma. Following the training intervention, group A clusters had a significant reduction in mean percentages of women reporting perineal wound infections and of women needing sutures removed.
conclusionPEARLS is the first RCT to assess the effects of a 'training package on implementation of evidence-based perineal trauma management. The intervention did not significantly improve the primary outcome but did significantly improve evidence-based practice and some of the relevant secondary clinical outcomes for women. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ISRCTN28960026 NIHR UKCRN portfolio no: 4785.
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.