Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2019
New approach to the evaluation of perineal measurements to predict the likelihood of the need for an episiotomy.
Observational study in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antenatal Anovaginal Distance, a Potential Indicator of Perineal Damage during Pregnancy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Association between anogenital distance as a noninvasive index in the diagnosis and prognosis of reproductive disorder: A systematic review.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2023Review
- The relationship between perineal size and episiotomy during delivery.Journal of medicine and life · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisEpisiotomy is performed selectively during vaginal delivery. Among the maternal anthropometric factors for episiotomy, the length of the perineal body (pb) and genital hiatus (gh) defined as per the POP-Q system have been studied. The objective of our study was to compare two perineal measurements (defined as per the POP-Q system and the anogenital distance [AGD] concept) to determine which of these can predict the likelihood of an episiotomy being performed.
methodsAn observational prospective cohort study was designed. Anthropometric data (pb, gh, symphysis-coccyx distance, distance between ischial tuberosities, AGDaf [anus-fourchette], and AGDac [anus-clitoris]), duration of the second stage of labor, and neonatal biometric data were collected from 119 women included in this study. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t test for unpaired data, Mann-Whitney, and Chi-squared tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare AGDaf, AGDac, and "gh + pb" with the presence of episiotomy.
resultsA shorter "gh + pb" length and AGDac were risk factors for episiotomy. Compared with AGDac, gh + pb was a slightly better predictor in ROC curve analysis. Furthermore, a longer duration of second-stage labor was evident in the episiotomy group.
conclusionsThis study introduces measures of AGD as risk factors for episiotomy. We propose that "gh + pb" length <77 mm and AGDac <93 mm may predict the likelihood of requiring episiotomy and may be useful for diminishing subjectivity in the decision to perform an episiotomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30140939What 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.