ArticlePloS one2017
Fetal head size and effect of manual perineal protection.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Birth and Regulation of head Extension to Guide Manual perineal Assistance (BREGMA) study: a prospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Finite element modeling in obstetrics and gynecology: advances, applications, and challenges.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- On the uncertainty quantification of the active uterine contraction during the second stage of labor simulation.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2024Article
- Article
- Feasibility and safety of antepartum tactile imaging.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Finite element modeling of maximum stress in pelvic floor structures during the head expulsion (FINESSE) study.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Metrics of perineal support (MOPS) study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Urinary incontinence and its relation to delivery circumstances: A population-based study from rural Kilimanjaro, Tanzania.PloS one · 2019Article
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
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether a previously identified modification of Viennese method of perineal protection remains most effective for reduction of perineal tension in cases with substantially smaller or larger fetal heads.
methodsA previously designed finite element model was used to compare perineal tension of different modifications of the Viennese method of perineal protection to "hands-off" technique for three different sizes of the fetal head. Quantity and extent of tension throughout the perineal body during vaginal delivery at the time when the suboccipito-bregmatic circumference passes between the fourchette and the lower margin of the pubis was determined.
resultsThe order of effectiveness of different modifications of manual perineal protection was similar for all three sizes of fetal head. The reduction of perineal tension was most significant in delivery simulations with larger heads. The final position of fingers 2cm anteriorly from the fourchette (y = +2) consistently remains most effective in reducing the tension. The extent of finger movement along the anterior-posterior (y-axis) contributes to the effectiveness of manual perineal protection.
conclusionAppropriately performed Viennese manual perineal protection seems to reduce the perineal tension regardless of the fetal head size, and thus the method seems to be applicable to reduce risk of perineal trauma for all parturients.
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.