ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2024
Episiotomy: Are Indian Obstetricians Getting the Angle Right?
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A mediolateral episiotomy is recommended when indicated at a 60° angle at crowning, to avoid obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) by episiotomies angled too close or distant to the anus. This study surveyed obstetricians in India regarding the recommended episiotomy angle and their ability to correctly draw the angle. Methods: Workshops were conducted in India to share knowledge in the prevention and repair of OASIs. A questionnaire was distributed prior to the workshop. Participants were asked to describe the recommended episiotomy angle and to draw this on a paper replica of the perineum. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the inter-rater reliability between the angle stated and drawn. A 2° difference was deemed acceptable. Standard errors of measurement (SEM) were calculated to measure the range of error of each measurement. Results: One hundred and forty doctors participated. 47.9% described the angle of an episiotomy to be 60°. Only 2.2% drew an angle of 60°, but 8.7% ( Conclusions: Knowledge surrounding the recommended episiotomy angle is lacking. Doctors are failing to estimate their desired episiotomy angle. This highlights the need for national guidelines, the creation and validation of structured training programmes to improve accuracy, or using fixed-angle devices such as the EPISCISSORS-60 or other proven measurement aids to minimise preventable harm due to human error.
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.