Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30872546›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injury in vacuum-assisted delivery in nulliparous women: study protocol on a randomised controlled trial.

Sandra Bergendahl, Victoria Ankarcrona, Åsa Leijonhufvud, Susanne Hesselman, Sofie Karlström, Helena Kopp Kallner, Sophia Brismar Wendel

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02643108 (Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Lateral Episiotomy Versus no Episiotomy in Vacuum Assisted Delivery in Non-parous Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT02643108 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Lateral Episiotomy Versus no Episiotomy in Vacuum Assisted Delivery in Non-parous Women

TypeinterventionalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2017 to 2028Enrolled717ConditionsPelvic Floor Disorders, Fecal Incontinence, Dystocia, Fetal HypoxiaArmsLateral episiotomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra BergendahlDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Victoria AnkarcronaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Åsa LeijonhufvudDepartment of Clinical Sciences Lund/Clinical Science Helsingborg, Lunds Universitet, Lund, Sweden.
Susanne HesselmanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Clinical Research Dalarna, Falu Hospital, Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sofie KarlströmDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Helena Kopp KallnerDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Sophia Brismar WendelDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9401-8062
Karolinska Institutet · SECenter for Clinical Research Dalarna · SELund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionObstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) occurs in 5%-7% of normal deliveries and increases with vacuum extraction (VE) to 12%-14% in nulliparous women in Sweden. Lateral/mediolateral episiotomy may reduce the prevalence of OASIS at VE in nulliparous women. The current use of episiotomy is restrictive. The protective effect and consequences are uncertain. This trial will investigate if lateral episiotomy can reduce the prevalence of OASIS and assess short-term and long-term effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial of lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy in nulliparous women with a singleton, live fetus, after gestational week 34+0 with indication for VE. A lateral episiotomy of 4 cm is cut at crowning, 1-3 cm from the midline, at a 60° angle. The primary outcome is OASIS by clinical diagnosis analysed according to intention to treat. To demonstrate a 50% reduction in OASIS prevalence (from 12.4% to 6.2%), 710 women will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio. Secondary outcomes are pain, blood loss, other perineal injuries, perineal complications, Apgar score, cord pH and neonatal complications. Web-based questionnaires at baseline, 2 months, 1 and 5 years will be used to assess pain, incontinence, prolapse, sexual function, quality of life and childbirth experience. A subset of women will receive follow-up by pelvic floor sonography and pelvic examination. Mode of delivery and recurrence of OASIS/episiotomy in subsequent pregnancies will be assessed at 5 and 10 years using register data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is open for enrolment. The trial has received ethical approval from the Regional Ethical Review Board of Stockholm and full funding from the Swedish Research Council. Women are interested in participation. The predominant restrictive view on episiotomy may limit recruitment. Results are of global interest and will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at international congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02643108; Pre-results.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnal CanalEpisiotomyFemaleHumansObstetric Labor ComplicationsPerineumPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRisk FactorsVacuum Extraction, Obstetricallateral episiotomyobstetric anal sphincter injurypelvic floor ultrasoundrandomised controlled trialvacuum extraction

Identifiers

PMID30872546
PMCPMC6429882
OpenAlexW2921695156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.