Observational studyNursing open2024
Midwives' approach to the prevention and repair of obstetric perineal trauma in Spain.
Observational study in Nursing open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Tacit Knowledge Integration in Midwifery: Policy Implications for Improving Healthcare Outcomes.International nursing review · 2025Review
- Midwives' approach to the prevention and repair of obstetric perineal trauma in Spain.Nursing open · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimDifferent clinical practice guidelines include recommendations on how to prevent and repair obstetric perineal trauma, as well as the use of episiotomy. To evaluate the variability in midwives' professional practices for preventing and repairing perineal trauma, as well as the professional factors that may be associated with the restrictive use of episiotomy.
designObservational cross-sectional study.
methodsThree hundred five midwives completed an anonymous questionnaire developed by the authors and distributed across various midwifery scientific societies. The main outcomes measured were the frequencies of adopting specific practices related to perineal injury prevention and repair, episiotomy technique and restrictive episiotomy use (<10%). Odds ratios (OR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated.
resultsIntrapartum perineal massage was not normally used by 253 (83%) of midwives, and 186 (61%) applied compresses soaked in warm water to the perineum. Regarding episiotomy, there was a great deal of variability, noting that 129 (42.3%) adopted a restrictive use of this procedure, 125 (41%) performed it between 10% and 20%, while 51 midwives (16.7%) performed it in more than 20% of cases. In addition, 165 (54.1%) midwives followed an incision angle of 60º. Concerning tears, 155 (50.8%) usually sutured first-degree tears and 273 (89.5%) always sutured second-degree tears. Midwives attending home births (aOR = 6.5; 95% CI: 2.69-15.69), working at a teaching hospital (aOR = 3.69; 95% CI: 1.39-9.84), and the ones who recently completed their professional training (aOR = 3.58; 95% CI: 1.46-8.79) were significantly more likely to adopt a restrictive use of episiotomy.
conclusionsThere is a significant variability in Spanish midwives' practices for preventing and repairing perineal tears. Moreover, the restrictive use of episiotomy is associated with midwives attending home births, working in teaching hospitals and having recent professional training. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.