ArticlePLoS medicine2025
Episiotomies and obstetric anal sphincter injuries following a restrictive episiotomy policy in France: An analysis of the 2010, 2016, and 2021 National Perinatal Surveys.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical predictors of postpartum vaginal and vulvar hematomas and the need for surgical treatment.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Incidence and Independent Risk Factors for Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries: A Four-Year Retrospective Cohort Study from a UK Tertiary Maternity Unit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Lactic Acid-Loaded Hydrogels for Post-Episiotomy Wound Healing: Microenvironment Engineering and Regenerative Strategies-A Narrative Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Detection of obstetric anal sphincter injuries: From the fear of malpractice to a quality indicator of a center.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
- Monitoring childbirth and immediate postpartum care quality: A scoping review of indicators in high-income countries.PloS one · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe French guidelines have recommended a restrictive policy of episiotomy since 2005. We aimed to assess variations in the prevalence of both episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) from the 2010, 2016, and 2021 National Perinatal Surveys. METHODS AND
findingsA total of 29,750 women who had given birth to a live infant by vaginal delivery were included. For instance, in 2021, 22.3% of women were over 35 years old, 17.7% were born outside of France, 11.3% had a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or higher, and 39.9% were primiparous. Episiotomy and OASI (third- and fourth-degree tears) were identified from medical records. We described the overall prevalence of outcomes, and then by obstetrical clinical contexts using a seven-group obstetric classification of women. Variations between 2010 (reference), 2016, and 2021 were analyzed by Cochran-Armitage tests and using Poisson regression models adjusted for maternal age, BMI, country of birth, antenatal classes, suspicion of fetal macrosomia, and neuroaxial analgesia during labor, the professional who attended the birth, the annual number of deliveries, and the maternity unit status to account for changes in women's characteristics and obstetric practices. The overall prevalence of episiotomy decreased significantly from 25.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 25.0 to 26.7) in 2010, to 20.1% (95% CI 19.3 to 20.9) in 2016, and 8.3% (95% CI 7.8 to 8.9) in 2021 (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.35). This reduction was observed in all groups of the classification (Cochran-Armitage tests P < 0.001), ranging from -33.0% in Group 2a [nulliparous term cephalic singleton with forceps delivery] to -94.0% in Group 7 [multiple pregnancy]. The difference in overall prevalence of OASI between 2010 (0.7%) and 2021 (1.0%) was not statistically significant after adjustment (aRR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.68). By groups of classification, the prevalence of OASI increased significantly only in Group 2b [nulliparous term cephalic singleton with spatula delivery] from 2.6% (95% CI 1.2 to 5.6) in 2010 to 9.6% (95% CI 6.2 to 14.7) in 2021 (aRR 3.69, 95% CI 1.50 to 9.09), and did not differ statistically significantly in Group 2a [nulliparous term cephalic singleton with forceps delivery] from 3.2% (95% CI 1.8 to 5.7) in 2010 to 5.7% (95% CI 3.4 to 9.5) in 2021 (aRR 1.78, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.90). The main limitations of this study include the failure to take into account some potential confounding factors and the inability to analyze some groups of the studied population (8.5% of the sample) because of the very small number of events in these groups.
conclusionsThe significant overall reduction in the prevalence of episiotomy in France has not been followed by an overall increase in OASI. However, subgroup analyses revealed a significant rise in OASI among nulliparous women giving birth by spatula (Group 2b), and a clinically relevant but statistically nonsignificant rise among nulliparous women delivering by forceps (Group 2a), while the prevalence of episiotomy significantly decreased. These results should be interpreted with caution given the low prevalence of OASI in some subgroups. Further research is needed to predict the optimal rate of episiotomy for instrumental deliveries. In hospitals with high episiotomy rates, our findings suggest that episiotomy could be safely reduced for spontaneous vaginal deliveries to comply with international guidelines and women's requests.
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.