Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25398160›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour.

Vittorio Basevi, Tina Lavender

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vittorio BaseviSaPeRiDoc, Primary health care, general medicine, planning and development of health services, Emilia-Romagna Regional health authority, Bologna, Italy. vbasevi@regione.emilia-romagna.it
Tina Lavender
Agenzia Regionale Prevenzione e Ambiente della Regione Emilia-Romagna · ITUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundPubic or perineal shaving is a procedure performed before birth in order to lessen the risk of infection if there is a spontaneous perinealtear or if an episiotomy is performed.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of routine perineal shaving before birth onmaternal and neonatal outcomes, according to the best available evidence.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (12 June 2014).Selection criteriaAll controlled trials (including quasi-randomised) that compare perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data using apredesigned form. Data were checked for accuracy.Main resultsThree randomised controlled trials (1039 women) published between 1922 and 2005 fulfilled the prespecified criteria. In the earliesttrial, 389 women were alternately allocated to receive either skin preparation and perineal shaving or clipping of vulval hair only. In thesecond trial, which included 150 participants, perineal shaving was compared with the cutting of long hairs for procedures only. In thethird and most recent trial, 500 women were randomly allocated to shaving of perineal area or cutting of perineal hair. The primaryoutcome for all three trials was maternal febrile morbidity; no differences were found (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval(CI) 0.73 to 1.76). No differences were found in terms of perineal wound infection (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.70) and perinealwound dehiscence (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.00) in the most recent trial involving 500 women, which was the only trial to assessthese outcomes. In the smallest trial, fewer women who had not been shaved had Gram-negative bacterial colonisation compared withwomen who had been shaved (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98). There were no instances of neonatal infection in either group in theone trial that reported this outcome. There were no differences in maternal satisfaction between groups in the larger trial reporting this outcome (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13). No trial reported on perineal trauma. One trial reported on side-effectsand these included irritation, redness, burning and itching.The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low (for the outcomes postpartum maternal febrile morbidity and neonatal infection)to low (for the outcome maternal satisfaction and wound infection).Authors’ conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend perineal shaving for women on admission in labour.

Indexed as

Labor, ObstetricPerineumConfidence IntervalsFemaleHair RemovalHumansOdds RatioPatient AdmissionPatient SatisfactionPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25398160
PMCPMC7076285
OpenAlexW1812945412

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.