ArticleHRB open research2022
Predicting perineal trauma during childbirth using data from a general obstetric population.
Article in HRB open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accessing Anonymised Data from Ireland's Maternal and Newborn Clinical Management System for Research Purposes.HRB open research · 2024Article
- Predicting perineal trauma during childbirth using data from a general obstetric population.HRB open research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Perineal trauma is a common complication of childbirth and can have serious impacts on long-term health. Few studies have examined the combined effect of multiple risk factors. We developed and internally validated a risk prediction model to predict third and fourth degree perineal tears using data from a general obstetric population. Methods: Risk prediction model using data from all singleton vaginal deliveries at Cork University Maternity Hospital (CUMH), Ireland during 2019 and 2020. Third/fourth degree tears were diagnosed by an obstetrician or midwife at time of birth and defined as tears that extended into the anal sphincter complex or involved both the anal sphincter complex and anorectal mucosa. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression with backward stepwise selection to develop the models. Candidate predictors included infant sex, maternal age, maternal body mass index, parity, mode of delivery, birthweight, post-term delivery, induction of labour and public/private antenatal care. We used the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve C-statistic to assess discrimination, and bootstrapping techniques were used to assess internal validation. Results: Of 8,403 singleton vaginal deliveries, 8,367 (99.54%) had complete data on predictors for model development. A total of 128 women (1.53%) had a third/fourth degree tear. Three variables remained in the final model: nulliparity, mode of delivery (specifically forceps delivery or ventouse delivery) and increasing birthweight (per 100 gram increase) (C-statistic: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.79). We developed a nomogram to calculate individualised risk of third/fourth degree tears using these predictors. Bootstrapping indicated good internal performance. Conclusions: Use of our nomogram can provide an individualised risk assessment of third/fourth degree tears and potentially aid counselling of women on their potential risk.
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.