Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27226734›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of women's health2016

The effect of implementing a new guideline and operative pro forma on the detection and management of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears.

Kristin Cornell, Alison De Souza, Mark Tacey, David M Long, Mayooran Veerasingham

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of women's health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04862299 (Pelvic-perineal Disorders in Women With Sphincter Tears, a Retrospective Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT04862299 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Pelvic-perineal Disorders in Women With Sphincter Tears, a Retrospective Study

TypeobservationalSponsorFondation Hôpital Saint-JosephRan2021 to 2023Enrolled86ConditionsObstetrical Perineal Injury and Anal Incontinence
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Care pathways and anorectal evaluation for obstetric anal sphincter injury-related incontinence: A UK survey of obstetricians.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Observational
  3. A UK wide survey of general surgeons' experience of the primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Kristin CornellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Northern Hospital, Epping, VIC, Australia.
Alison De SouzaDepartment of Urogynecology, Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Mark TaceyNorthern Clinical Research Centre, The Northern Hospital and Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
David M LongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The Austin Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Mayooran VeerasinghamThe Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ipswich General Hospital, Ipswich, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) is a serious complication of vaginal births, resulting in possible long-term consequences such as incontinence and pain. Adequate detection and management of these injuries is vital in minimizing the impact they have on women.

aimTo assess the rates of detection, management, and outcomes of OASI before and after the implementation of a new clinical practice guideline and operative pro forma. MATERIALS AND

methodsA 12-month audit of the incidence, management, and outcomes of OASI was conducted in 2009. An operative pro forma and practice guideline were implemented in 2010 followed by a further audit undertaken between 2010 and 2012. Statistical analysis was performed to determine any significant change in practice.

resultsThe distribution of risk factors for OASI including primiparity, birthweight, and type of vaginal delivery was similar between the two audited groups. After implementation of the pro forma, the reported incidence of OASI increased from 1.62% to 3.1% (P=0.004). Significant changes in management included an increase in the use of recommended suture material (48% vs 80%, P=0.002), postoperative antibiotics (78% vs 99%, P=0.001), postoperative catheterization (52% vs 90%, P<0.001), and inpatient physiotherapy consultations (44% vs 97%, P=<0.001). An increase was seen in women attending their 6-week follow-up appointment (33% vs 54% P=0.058); however, this was just below the level of statistical significance.

conclusionThe introduction of the new pro forma and guideline resulted in an increase in the reported incidence of OASI, improved management, and follow-up of patients.

Indexed as

anal incontinenceepisiotomyguidelineobstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI)perineal tearpro forma

Identifiers

PMID27226734
PMCPMC4863681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.