ArticleBMJ open2018
Enhancing recognition of obstetric anal sphincter injuries in six maternity units in Palestine: an interventional quality improvement study.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02427854 (Can Perineal Tears and Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries in Palestine be Prevented? A Study of Two Different Interventions), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Can Perineal Tears and Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries in Palestine be Prevented? A Study of Two Different Interventions
Who cites it
5 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
- Diagnosis, management and training in perineal trauma: a UK national survey of obstetricians.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Time trends in episiotomy and severe perineal tears in Portugal: a nationwide register-based study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Under-classified obstetric anal sphincter injuries.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Impact of electronic and blended learning programs for manual perineal support on incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a prospective interventional study.BMC medical education · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the impact of a training intervention on obstetric anal sphincter injuries' (OASIS) detection rate.
designProspective quality improvement interventional study.
settingSix secondary and tertiary maternity units in Palestine. POPULATION: Women having singleton vaginal births ≥23 weeks' gestation or babies weighing ≥500 g (n=22 922). Caesarean births (n=5431), multiple gestations (n=443) and vaginal births of unregistered perineum status (n=800) were excluded.
interventionsTraining programme for enhancing OASIS detection was conducted between 31 January and 31 December 2015. International experts delivered 2-day standardisation workshop teaching OASIS diagnosis and repair to each maternity unit. They also provided additional training to three research fellows employed in three of the maternity units. This was followed by 13-week period of data collection (phase 1). Research fellows then delivered training intervention over 15-week interval (phase 2), including theoretical teaching and 'onsite' training in perineal trauma assessment within the six maternity units. Finally, 13-week postintervention observation (phase 3) followed. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: OASIS rates were used as surrogate for OASIS recognition. OASIS rates were compared between different phases and between the two maternity unit groups (research fellow and non-research fellow based) using Pearson's χ² test.
resultsA total 22 922 women were included. Among primiparous women, OASIS rate was higher in phase 2 (2.8%, p<0.001) and phase 3 (3.1%, p<0.001) than phase 1 (0.5%). However, no significant differences were detected in the rates of severe OASIS (third-degree 3c and fourth-degree tears) between phase 1 and 2 (0.5% vs 0.3%), because this would have required at least 103 women with severe OASIS to be included in each phase. Among parous women, OASIS rate was significantly higher in phase 2 (0.6%, p=0.002) but not in phase 3 (0.4%, p=0.071) compared with phase 1 (0.2%). Research fellows' maternity units showed higher OASIS rates among primiparous women in phase 2 (3.6% vs 1.4%, p=0.001) and phase 3 (4.3% vs 0.8%, p<0.001) than non-research fellows' maternity units.
conclusionsThis work is basically an epidemiological study which has identified the prevalence of perineal lacerations and their severity on a large sample of women representative of an entire geographical ethnic region. The quality improvement intervention improved OASIS detection mainly in the research fellows' maternity units. Regular mandatory national programmes in obstetric perineal trauma assessment and management by local champions are essential to mitigate the risk of missing significant degrees of trauma.
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.