ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025
Analysis of risk factors and prediction model construction for poor healing of perineal wounds after vaginal delivery: A retrospective case-control study.
Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selective episiotomy guided by a perineal evaluation form for forceps-assisted vaginal delivery: a retrospective cohort study on maternal and neonatal outcomes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- The episiotomy self-efficacy scale: a scale development study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Perineal wounds after vaginal delivery are very common, but the existing evidence for poor healing of perineal wounds is limited. Although some studies have analyzed the risk factors for poor perineal wound healing, there are currently no simple and practical predictive tools available for clinical use. Objective: To retrospectively analyze the independent risk factors for poor perineal wound healing after vaginal delivery and to establish a risk prediction model for poor perineal wound healing. Design: A Retrospective Case-Control Study. Data Source: A total of 167 cases of poor perineal wound healing after vaginal delivery who visited the emergency department from May 2021 to September 2023 in our hospital were selected as the poor perineal wound healing group. The control group was randomly selected by the random number table method at a ratio of 1:2 from those with normal perineal wound healing during the same period. Methods: Clinical indicators of the two groups were analyzed, and the risk factors for poor perineal wound healing were analyzed using univariate and multivariate Logistic regression analysis, and a risk prediction model was constructed. A nomogram was drawn, and the model was evaluated by discrimination and calibration. Results: This study ultimately included four independent risk factors to construct the risk prediction model, including primiparity, perineal laceration, perineal laceration combined with laceration, and vaginal hematoma. The model formula was Conclusions: The risk prediction model for poor perineal wound healing after vaginal delivery can reasonably predict the risk of poor incision healing, providing a basis for obstetric medical staff to take preventive management measures for high-risk groups before the discharge of parturient women, thereby reducing the occurrence of poor perineal wound healing.
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.