ArticleAfrican journal of primary health care & family medicine2021
The perception and knowledge about episiotomy: A cross-sectional survey involving healthcare workers in a low- and middle-income country.
Article in African journal of primary health care & family medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of episiotomy practice and factors associated with it in Ethiopia, systematic review and meta-analysis.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Restrictive approach to episiotomy and the risk of third- and fourth-grade perineal tears: An analytical cross-sectional study at a rural tertiary hospital in South Africa.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of the Use of Routine Versus Selective Episiotomy for Vaginal Birth.Cureus · 2024Review
- 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpisiotomy was introduced into clinical practice without clear evidence of its benefits.The knowledge and understanding of episiotomy guidelines and practice by healthcare workers is substandard in our setting; hence, the injudicious use of this procedure have led to high rates.
aimTo assess the knowledge, perception and practice of episiotomy by healthcare workers.
settingResearch was conducted in a Pietermaritzburg complex, South AfricaMethods: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted amongst healthcare workers regarding episiotomy practice. In addition to providing demographic data, the participants were requested to respond to 35 proposed statements regarding episiotomy practice. Data were analysed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software.
resultsOne hundred and forty-two midwives and 66 medical practitioners completed the questionnaires. There were variations in responses to several statements on episiotomy practice by medical practitioners and nurses based on their level of experience. This study found that the majority of HCWs did not have access to a protocol or policy on episiotomy practice in their units; furthermore, nor knowledge of the South African guidelines for maternity care on episiotomy practice. Significantly, more medical practitioners felt a need for more in-service training and an increase in the number of episiotomies performed under supervision. The commonly reported reason for performing an episiotomy by both medical practitioners and midwives was to reduce 3rd - 4th degree perineal tears.
conclusionHealthcare workers in our setting displayed poor knowledge about the practice of episiotomy and were not aware of existing national guidelines on episiotomy practice.
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.