Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34547792›Full record

ArticleRevista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia2021

Perineal Lacerations: A Retrospective Study in a Habitual-Risk Public Maternity.

Lauro Henrique Heinsch Domenighi, Angela Regina Maciel Weinmann, Leris Salete Bonfanti Haeffner, Marcelo Lorensi Feltrin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  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

4 authors.

Lauro Henrique Heinsch DomenighiMedical School, Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, RS, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-9898-6079
Angela Regina Maciel WeinmannMedical School, Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, RS, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-2381-9396
Leris Salete Bonfanti HaeffnerMedical School, Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, RS, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8798-4345
Marcelo Lorensi FeltrinMedical School, Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, RS, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4842-1093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn around 85% of vaginal births, the parturients undergo perineal lacerations and/or episiotomy. The present study aimed to determine the incidence of lacerations and episiotomies among parturients in 2018 in a habitual-risk public maternity hospital in southern Brazil, and to determine the risk and protective factors for such events. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective cross-sectional study. Data were obtained from medical records and analyzed using the Stata software. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed. Values of

resultsIn 2018, there were 525 vaginal births, 27.8% of which were attended by obstetricians, 70.7% by obstetric nurses, and 1.5% evolved without assistance. Overall, 55.2% of the parturients had some degree of laceration. The professional who attended the birth was a significant variable: a greater number of first- and second-degree lacerations, as well as more severe cases, occurred in births attended by nurses (odds ratio [OR]: 2,95; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 1,74 to 5,03). Positions at birth that did not enable perineal protection techniques (expulsive period with the "hands-off" method), when analyzed in isolation, determined the risk; however, in the final regression model, this relationship was not confirmed. Although reported in the literature, there were no associations between the occurrence of laceration and age, skin color, or birth weight. In 24% of the births, episiotomy was performed, and doctors performed 63.5% of them.

conclusionBirths attended by nurses resulted in an increased risk of perineal lacerations, of varying degrees. In turn, those assisted by physicians had a higher occurrence of episiotomy.

Indexed as

LacerationsCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery, ObstetricEpisiotomyFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPerineumPregnancyRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID34547792
PMCPMC10183942

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.