ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Evaluation of Comprehensive Documentation After Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) has increased in recent years, which may be due to improved recognition and documentation. There is limited evidence regarding the effects of thorough documentation of obstetric anal sphincter injury repairs on postpartum clinical outcomes. Our objectives were to (1) compare the incidence of perineal wound complications between documentation groups, (2) compare other adverse events, and (3) to describe factors associated with adequate documentation. We hypothesized that better documentation would be associated with improved clinical outcomes.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 599 patients with OASI at a tertiary care referral center between January 2015 and December 2020. A priori definitions of documentation adequacy were utilized to stratify delivery notes. On the basis of these criteria, there were preferred, adequate, and inadequate documentation groups. Maternal characteristics, outcomes, and peripartum factors were compared between the groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the groups. A higher degree of perineal laceration (p < 0.001), greater blood loss (p = 0.002), and the need for repairs in the operating room (p = 0.019) were significant factors associated with adequate documentation. Clinicians who were comprehensive in their documentation were more likely to refer patients to Urogynecology (p < 0.001) and to add OASI to the electronic medical record problem list (p = 0.005).
conclusionsWhile certain factors are associated with adequate documentation, this did not improve clinical outcomes for OASI and further research is warranted to explore the importance of medical documentation surrounding OASI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39503751What 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.