Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29537100›Full record

ArticleBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2018

Risk and protective factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: A retrospective nationwide study.

Marie-Louise Marschalek, Christof Worda, Lorenz Kuessel, Heinz Koelbl, Willi Oberaigner, Hermann Leitner, Julian Marschalek, Heinrich Husslein

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marie-Louise MarschalekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christof WordaDivision of Obstetrics and Feto-Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Lorenz KuesselDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Heinz KoelblClinical Division for General Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Willi OberaignerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology Tirol Kliniken, Innsbruck, Austria.
Hermann LeitnerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology Tirol Kliniken, Innsbruck, Austria.
Julian MarschalekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Heinrich HussleinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0585-7444
Medical University of Vienna · ATTirol Kliniken · ATVienna General Hospital · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn view of the reported increase in obstetric anal sphincter injuries, the objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of such injuries over time and the associated risk and protective factors.

methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study from a national database of 168 137 primiparous women with term, singleton, cephalic, vaginal delivery between 2008 and 2014. The main outcome measure was obstetric anal sphincter injury. A multivariate regression model was used to identify risk and protective factors.

resultsAge >19 years, birthweight >4000 g, and operative vaginal delivery were independent risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Mediolateral episiotomy increased the risk for obstetric anal sphincter injuries in spontaneous vaginal birth (number needed to harm 333), whereas it was protective in vacuum delivery (number needed to treat 50). From 2008 to 2014, there was an increase in the rate of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (2.1% vs 3.1%, P < .01), vacuum deliveries (12.1% vs 12.8%, P < .01), and cesarean delivery after labor (17.1% vs 19.4%, P < .01), while forceps deliveries (0.4% vs 0.1%, P < .01) and episiotomy rate decreased (35.9% vs 26.4%, P < .01).

conclusionsEpisiotomy may be a risk or protective factor depending on the type of episiotomy and the clinical setting in which it is used. Our study supports a restrictive use of mediolateral episiotomy in spontaneous vaginal deliveries. In vacuum deliveries mediolateral episiotomy may help prevent obstetric anal sphincter injuries.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnal CanalAustriaDatabases, FactualDelivery, ObstetricEpisiotomyFemaleHumansLabor, ObstetricLogistic ModelsMultivariate AnalysisObstetric Labor ComplicationsPerineumPregnancyProtective Factorsepisiotomyobstetric anal sphincter injuryrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID29537100
PMCPMC6282595
OpenAlexW2793111529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.