ArticleAfrican health sciences2021
Perspectives of skilled birth attendants and pregnant women regarding episiotomy: a quantitative approach.
Article in African health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization recommended less than 10% episiotomy rate for Skilled Birth Attendants (SBAs) and hospitals in 1996. More than two decades afterwards, some health facilities are still grappling with meeting the set target.
objectivesThis study assessed the perspectives of SBAs and pregnant women regarding episiotomy in a Nigerian university teaching hospital.
methodsA cross-sectional design was employed. Census sampling was used to select 19 SBAS and 973 vaginal birth records from 2019, while consecutive sampling technique was used to enrol 134 consenting pregnant women obtaining antenatal services in the facility. Data was collected using a three part instrument involving a data extraction sheet, episiotomy practice questionnaire for SBAs, and feelings about episiotomy questionnaire for pregnant women. Assembled data were summarised with descriptive statistics.
resultsThe episiotomy rate was 345(35.5%). About 266 (77.1%) of first time mothers (primips) and 79(22.9%) of nonfirst time mothers (multips) received episiotomy. Ten (52.6%) of the SBAs were unsure of any evidence supporting routine episiotomy. All the 19(100%) SBAs reported that there was no existing facility-based policy regarding routine episiotomy. Seventy five (56%) of the pregnant women reported feeling generally bad about episiotomy. One hundred and one (82.3%) of them hinted that they will not feel satisfied if they were given episiotomy with the reason that it ensures quick vaginal birth.
conclusionThe rate of episiotomy was higher than global recommended standards and primips are disproportionately affected. If organised by professional societies, more scientific conferences on limiting episiotomy might remedy this situation.
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.