ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019
A novel classification for evaluating episiotomy practices: application to the Burgundy perinatal network.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mediolateral episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injuries in nullipara: a propensity score matching study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Episiotomies and obstetric anal sphincter injuries following a restrictive episiotomy policy in France: An analysis of the 2010, 2016, and 2021 National Perinatal Surveys.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Influence of the maternity unit and region of delivery on episiotomy practice in France: a nationwide population-based study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- A nationwide cross-sectional survey of episiotomy practice in China.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Article
- Mediolateral episiotomy and risk of obstetric anal sphincter injuries and adverse neonatal outcomes during operative vaginal delivery in nulliparous women: a propensity-score analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Observational
- Episiotomy practices in France: epidemiology and risk factors in non-operative vaginal deliveries.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Shifting Trends in Obstetrics: An 18-year Analysis of Low-risk Births at a German University Hospital.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThough the rate of episiotomy has decreased in France, the overall episiotomy rate was 20% in the 2016 national perinatal survey. We aimed to develop a classification to facilitate the analysis of episiotomy practices and to evaluate whether episiotomy is associated with a reduction in the rate of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) for each subgroup.
methodsThis population-based study included all the deliveries that occurred in the Burgundy Perinatal Network from 2011 to 2016. The main outcome was episiotomy, which was identified thanks to the French Common Classification of Medical Procedures. An ascending hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to build the classification. A clinical audit using the classification was conducted yearly in all obstetric units. The episiotomy rates were described throughout the study period for each subgroup of the classification. The OASIS rates were evaluated by subgroup and the association between mediolateral episiotomy and OASIS was investigated for each subgroup.
resultsOur analyses included 81,290 pregnant women. The classification comprised 7 subgroups:
conclusionWe developed the first classification for the evaluation of episiotomy practices based on 7 clinically relevant subgroups. This easy-to-use tool can help obstetricians and midwives improve their practices through self-assessment.
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.