SynthesisActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Risk of cervical laceration in forceps vs vacuum delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk of cervical laceration in forceps vs vacuum delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Management of Hereditary Hypofibrinogenemia During Pregnancy: A Scoping Review Towards Personalized Obstetric Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Operative Vaginal Delivery Compared to Cesarean After Failed Labor: A Population-Based Analysis of Neonatal and Maternal Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCervical laceration is an obstetric injury associated with severe postpartum hemorrhage and subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. While operative vaginal delivery is a known risk factor for cervical laceration, it is unclear whether forceps and vacuum deliveries incur the same risk. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the risk of cervical laceration between operative instruments (forceps vs vacuum). MATERIAL AND
methodsMedline, Embase, Global Health, CENTRAL, Emcare, and Web of Science were searched from inception until August 2024 with terms related to operative vaginal delivery and cervical laceration. Studies comparing the risk of cervical laceration in individuals undergoing forceps or vacuum delivery were included. Two authors conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of all studies. Random-effects models were used to pool risk ratios across studies and certainty of evidence was assessed using Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42023421890.
resultsThirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 observational studies. The overall rate of cervical laceration was 0.35% (990/284218 births) where 1.04% of forceps deliveries (456/43817) were complicated by cervical laceration compared to 0.22% of vacuum deliveries (534/240401). The risk of cervical laceration was 2-5 fold greater in forceps deliveries than in vacuum deliveries: pooled unadjusted risk ratio [RR] 4.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56-14.98 among RCTs and pooled unadjusted RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.59-2.24 among observational studies. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate mainly due to the lack of attention to confounding in the included literature. The GRADE assessment indicated that the certainty of evidence was very low for observational studies and moderate for RCTs.
conclusionsLow certainty of evidence indicates that forceps deliveries may be associated with an increased risk of cervical laceration compared to vacuum deliveries.
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.