ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
Episiotomy in modern clinical practice: friend or foe?
Article 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of pelvic floor muscle training alone or as part of a general physical activity program during pregnancy on urinary incontinence, episiotomy and third- or fourth-degree perineal tear: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of the Use of Routine Versus Selective Episiotomy for Vaginal Birth.Cureus · 2024Review
- Family medicine physician identification of obstetric lacerations: a US national survey.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Perinatal health among migrant women: A longitudinal register study in Finland 2000-17.SSM - population health · 2022Article
- Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal births in Shanghai hospitals, China: a comparison of policies.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Obstetric anal sphincter injuries and other delivery trauma: a US national survey of obstetrician-gynecologists.International urogynecology journal · 2022Article
- Letter to the editor: selective episiotomy versus no episiotomy for severe perineal trauma: a systematic review with meta-analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Cochrane library first published a meta-analysis in 2000 on the role of the episiotomy in modern clinical practice, which concluded that only a policy of selective episiotomy is acceptable with evidence-based improvement in maternal health compared with routine episiotomy. Many years later, however, the new version of the Cochrane meta-analysis changed the previous recommendations in that the selective use of episiotomy could not be considered beneficial in all cases. A selective policy is associated with a statistically significant reduction in severe perineal and/or vaginal trauma, whereas routine episiotomy seems to protect against these complications only after instrumental deliveries. Both in the short and the long term, selective medio-lateral episiotomy has no additional beneficial effects without clear evidence of causing harm to the mother or baby.
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.