Trial reportReproductive health2014
Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Reproductive health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02178111 (Not Performing Episiotomy Versus Selective Episiotomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Not Performing Episiotomy Versus Selective Episiotomy: a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial.Reproductive health · 2017Trial
- Restrictive approach to episiotomy and the risk of third- and fourth-grade perineal tears: An analytical cross-sectional study at a rural tertiary hospital in South Africa.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2026Article
- Article
- Observation of non-recommended (harmful) intrapartum practices among obstetric care providers in public hospitals in southern Ethiopia, 2023.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- The effect of music-based interventions on short-term postpartum episiotomy pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Perineal stress as a predictor of performing episiotomy in primiparous women: a prospective observational study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Observational
- Selective use of episiotomy: what is the impact on perineal trauma? Results from a retrospective cohort study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2020Article
- A novel classification for evaluating episiotomy practices: application to the Burgundy perinatal network.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
- Once episiotomy, always episiotomy?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorld Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the episiotomy rate should be around 10%, which is already a reality in many European countries. Currently the use of episiotomy should be restricted and physicians are encouraged to use their clinical judgment to decide when the procedure is necessary. There is no clinical evidence corroborating any indication of episiotomy, so until the present moment it is not yet known whether episiotomy is indeed necessary in any context of obstetric practice.
objectivesTo compare maternal and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing a protocol of not performing episiotomy versus selective episiotomy. METHODS/
designAn open label randomized clinical trial will be conducted including laboring women with term pregnancy, maximum dilation of 8 cm, live fetus in cephalic vertex presentation. Women with bleeding disorders of pregnancy, indication for caesarean section and those without capacity to consent and without legal guardians will be excluded. Primary outcomes will be frequency of episiotomy, delivery duration, frequency of spontaneous lacerations and perineal trauma, frequency of instrumental delivery, postpartum blood loss, need for perineal suturing, number of sutures, Apgar scores at one and five minutes, need for neonatal resuscitation and pH in cord blood. As secondary outcomes frequency complications of perineal suturing, postpartum perineal pain, maternal satisfaction, neonatal morbidity and admission newborn in NICU will be assessed. Women will be invited to participate and those who agree will sign the consent form and will be then assigned to a protocol of not conducting episiotomy (experimental group) or to a group that episiotomy is performed selectively according to the judgment of the provider of care delivery (control Group). The present study was approved by IMIP's Research Ethics Committee.
trial registrationClinical Trials Register under the number and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT02178111.
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.