Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32690494›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Women's experience of episiotomy: a qualitative study from China.

Siyuan He, Hong Jiang, Xu Qian, Paul Garner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Mistreatment of Women during Childbirth and Associated Factors in Northern West Bank, Palestine.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Siyuan He *School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5375-1084
Hong Jiang *School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xu QianSchool of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China xqian@shmu.edu.cn.
Paul GarnerCentre for Evidence Synthesis in Global Health, Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Fudan University · CNLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe women's experience of episiotomy in urban China.

designThis is a semistructured, indepth interview with women after episiotomy. We analysed transcriptions using thematic analysis in Chinese. Emerging themes were debated in English to finalise interpretation.

settingTwo community health centres and four hospitals in Shanghai, China.

participantsPurposive sampling of 30 postpartum women who had experienced episiotomy; 25 were primiparous and 4 had deliveries by forceps. We interviewed health providers to complement the data.

resultsWe identified four main themes: (1) women's views of the procedure vary considerably; (2) pain interferes with daily life for weeks; (3) long-term anxiety is a consequence for some, described as a 'psychological shadow'; and (4) societal norms assume women will not complain.

conclusionWomen receive little information in advance about episiotomy, yet the procedure has a wide range of physical and psychological consequences. This includes long-term anxiety about the damage done to them as women.

Indexed as

PainAdultAnxietyChinaDelivery, ObstetricEpisiotomyFemaleHumansPerineumPostpartum PeriodPregnancyQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeSocial Normsepisiotomyperineal traumawomen’s experience

Identifiers

PMID32690494
PMCPMC7371141
OpenAlexW3042637468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.