Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38965793›Full record

SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025

Caesarean section and anal incontinence in women after obstetric anal sphincter injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emily Carter, Rebecca Hall, Kelechi Ajoku, Jenny Myers, Rohna Kearney

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Emily CarterThe Warrell Unit, Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6336-7916
Rebecca HallThe Warrell Unit, Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Kelechi AjokuThe Warrell Unit, Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Jenny MyersDivision of Developmental Biology and Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Rohna KearneyThe Warrell Unit, Saint Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1489-4397

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 50% women who give birth after obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) develop anal incontinence (AI) over their lifetime.

objectiveTo evaluate current evidence for a protective benefit of planned caesarean section (CS) to prevent AI after OASI. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase 1974-2024, CINAHL and Cochrane to 7 February 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42022372442). SELECTION CRITERIA: All studies reporting outcomes after OASI and a subsequent birth, by any mode. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eighty-six of 2646 screened studies met inclusion criteria, with nine studies suitable to meta-analyse the primary outcome of 'adjusted AI' after OASI and subsequent birth. Subgroups: short-term AI, long-term AI, AI in asymptomatic women. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: total AI, quality of life, satisfaction/regret, solid/liquid/flatal incontinence, faecal urgency, AI in women with and without subsequent birth, change in AI pre- to post- subsequent birth. MAIN

resultsThere was no evidence of a difference in adjusted AI after subsequent vaginal birth compared with CS after OASI across all time periods (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.20; 9 studies, 2104 participants, I

conclusionsDue to low evidence quality, we are unable to determine whether planned caesarean is protective against AI after OASI. Higher quality evidence is required to guide personalised decision-making for asymptomatic women and to determine the effect of subsequent birth mode on long-term AI outcomes.

Indexed as

Anal CanalCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricFecal IncontinenceObstetric Labor ComplicationsFemaleHumansPregnancyQuality of Lifeanal incontinencecaesareanfaecal incontinencemode of birthOASISobstetric anal sphincter injuryplanned birthquality of liferecurrent OASIshared decision‐makingvaginal birth

Identifiers

PMID38965793
PMCPMC12137769

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.