ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017
Evaluation of training programme uptake in an attempt to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injuries: the SUPPORT programme.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of education and training programmes to help clinicians assess and classify perineal tears: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- IUGA International Guidelines on Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Quality and reporting of large-scale improvement programmes: a review of maternity initiatives in the English NHS, 2010-2023.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Review
- Identification of Clinician Training Techniques as an Implementation Strategy to Improve Maternal Health: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to assess the feedback from a quality improvement training programme to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS).
methodsTraining sessions were organised that included evidence-based information on OASIS risk factors and training on models to measure perineal body length (PBL), perform episiotomies with standard and 60° fixed angle scissors (EPISCISSORS-60®), and measure post-delivery episiotomy suture angles with protractor transparencies. Feedback forms using a Likert scale (1-4) were completed and analysed. The setting was an evidence-based quality improvement programme (Strategy for Using Practical aids for Prevention of OASIS, Recording episiotomies and clinician Training [SUPPORT]) at two National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. The participants were midwives and doctors attending the SUPPORT training programme
resultsAll of the participants (100 %) would recommend the training programme to a friend or colleague. 92 % felt that the training session improved their knowledge of the impact of PBL and perineal distension and their knowledge of the relationship between episiotomy angle and OASIS "a lot" or "somewhat".
conclusionBased on this feedback, we recommend the addition of the knowledge content of the SUPPORT programme to other centres providing perineal assessment and repair courses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27783118What 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.