ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2024
Family medicine physician identification of obstetric lacerations: a US national survey.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- IUGA International Guidelines on Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries.International urogynecology journal · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisWe evaluated family medicine obstetric providers' identification and categorization of vaginal delivery lacerations in the USA. We hypothesized that there would be inaccuracy in family medicine physicians' identification of vaginal delivery injuries, similar to our previous studies of midwives and obstetricians (OBs).
methodsWe included clinically active physicians who attended deliveries within 2 years and evaluated their identification and categorization of delivery lacerations using descriptive text and visual images. We asked about their education on this topic and how they document lacerations in the labor and delivery record.
resultsWe analyzed 250 completed responses (70% of opened surveys). Fifty-five percent of respondents characterized their obstetric laceration training as "good" or "excellent" and half previously had education on obstetric lacerations. The median accuracy overall for the classification and identification of perineal lacerations was 78% (IQR 56-91%). Respondents frequently mischaracterized nonperineal lacerations. Few respondents (36%) reported using the third-degree injury subclassification system. In adjusted analysis, the highest scoring respondents were board certified in family medicine, with fewer years in practice, and a higher obstetric volume.
conclusionsObstetric laceration diagnoses may be inaccurate, which could influence perinatal quality and patient outcomes. We found gaps in knowledge similar to previous reports on midwives and obstetricians in the USA. These data suggest a need for increased education and training on obstetric injuries, perhaps especially for physicians with less obstetric activity. Improved categorization and identification of vaginal delivery trauma can impact management and improve women's postpartum care and long-term pelvic floor outcomes.
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.