Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32399907›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021

Identification of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) and other lacerations: a national survey of nurse-midwives.

Sindi Diko, Jeanelle Sheeder, Maryam Guiahi, Amy Nacht, Shane Reeves, Kathleen A Connell, K Joseph Hurt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Influence of previous delivery mode on perineal trauma risk.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Sindi DikoDepartment of Surgery, St. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, NJ, USA.
Jeanelle SheederDivision of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Maryam GuiahiDivision of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Amy NachtNurse Midwifery Program, College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Shane ReevesDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Kathleen A ConnellDivision of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
K Joseph HurtDivision of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. K.Joseph.Hurt@CUAnschutz.edu.

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR025780 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI SOKOL, RONALD J. · 2008 to 2011
$61.3M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025780
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisClinical quality improvement relies on accurate understanding of current practice. We performed a cross-sectional national survey of certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) assessing classification and identification of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) and other delivery lacerations. We hypothesized laceration diagnoses are frequently inaccurate, and delivery records for obstetric lacerations may be of questionable quality.

methodsWe emailed 6909 American College of Nurse Midwives members an internet-based survey link. Of respondents, we included clinically active CNMs who perform at least one delivery per month. We evaluated laceration knowledge and application using standard descriptive text and images and asked about processes for recording lacerations in the delivery record.

resultsWe received 1070 (15.5%) completed surveys and 832 (77.8%) met inclusion criteria. Over 50% characterized their OASI training and ability to identify OASI as good/excellent. Most (79%) had never attended education review on OASI. The overall accuracy for classification and identification of perineal lacerations ranged from 49 to 99%. Non-perineal lacerations were frequently categorized using the perineal/OASI system. Half of respondents (51%) document their deliveries in an electronic medical record but a quarter (28%) are not personally responsible for approving delivery data. Younger participants without a doctoral degree, with self-assessed good/excellent laceration training, and caring for < 50% publicly insured patients had higher accuracy for laceration identification and diagnosis.

conclusionsWe found high rates of inaccurate laceration diagnosis and inappropriate application of the perineal OASI degree system, suggesting education and training are needed. Clinical studies that rely on delivery diagnosis of OASI may not be reliable.

Indexed as

LacerationsNurse MidwivesObstetric Labor ComplicationsAnal CanalCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansPerineumPregnancyRisk FactorsCross-sectionalEducationMidwiferyPerineal traumaQuality improvement

Identifiers

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.