Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31823037›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2020

Selective use of episiotomy: what is the impact on perineal trauma? Results from a retrospective cohort study.

Massimo Franchi, Francesca Parissone, Cecilia Lazzari, Simone Garzon, Antonio Simone Laganà, Ricciarda Raffaelli, Antonella Cromi, Fabio Ghezzi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A nationwide cross-sectional survey of episiotomy practice in China.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Massimo FranchiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AOUI Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Francesca ParissoneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AOUI Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Cecilia LazzariDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AOUI Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Simone GarzonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, "Filippo Del Ponte" Hospital, University of Insubria, Piazza Biroldi 1, 21100, Varese, Italy. simone.garzon@yahoo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5840-699X
Antonio Simone LaganàDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, "Filippo Del Ponte" Hospital, University of Insubria, Piazza Biroldi 1, 21100, Varese, Italy.
Ricciarda RaffaelliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AOUI Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Antonella CromiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, "Filippo Del Ponte" Hospital, University of Insubria, Piazza Biroldi 1, 21100, Varese, Italy.
Fabio GhezziDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, "Filippo Del Ponte" Hospital, University of Insubria, Piazza Biroldi 1, 21100, Varese, Italy.
University of Insubria · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the effects of selective use of episiotomy on perineal trauma.

methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on consecutive vaginal deliveries from January 2010 to December 2016. From January 2010 to December 2011 episiotomy was performed liberally, based only on individual midwife/doctor's decision. Since January 2012, a shared selective use of episiotomy policy has been introduced. To evaluate the range of perineal trauma in spontaneous second-degree perineal tears, a sub-classification of second-degree lacerations has been introduced dividing them into two sub-groups: A (smaller than the average episiotomy) and B (spontaneous vaginal tear larger than the average episiotomy). The primary outcomes were the incidence and type of perineal trauma, with the proportion of type A and type B second-degree spontaneous tears under a policy of selective episiotomy.

resultsDeliveries not exposed to selective use of episiotomy were 1583 (Group 1), those exposed to selective use of episiotomy were 6409 (Group 2). In Group 2 episiotomy rate decreased, and incidence of intact perineum, first- and second-degree lacerations increased. The incidence of third- and fourth-degree lacerations did not change. Spontaneous second-degree lacerations occurred in 19.4% and 36.8% of women in group 1 and 2, respectively. With a selective episiotomy policy, 88.3% of second-degree tears was classified as type A.

conclusionsThe selective use of episiotomy is clinically feasible and effective. This policy seems to be associated with a lower delivery-related perineal trauma as showed by the sub-classification, that could be a useful tool to monitor obstetric care.

Indexed as

AdultEpisiotomyFemaleHumansObstetric Labor ComplicationsPerineumPregnancyRetrospective StudiesClassification of second-degree lacerationEpisiotomyLacerationPerineal traumaVaginal delivery

Identifiers

PMID31823037
OpenAlexW2993813244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.