Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41217016›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026

Healing-assessment tools for perineal and cesarean section wounds in postpartum women: A scoping review.

Rebecca Man, Jack Le Vance, Yasmine Popa, Danielle Wilson, Sue Tohill, John Maltby, Victoria Hodgetts Morton, R Katie Morris, CHAPTER group

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Rebecca ManDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0983-7590
Jack Le VanceDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1725-0116
Yasmine PopaCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Danielle WilsonCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sue TohillDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2344-4347
John MaltbyDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0621-9359
Victoria Hodgetts MortonDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9817-4313
R Katie MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1247-429X
CHAPTER group

Funding

Programme Grants for Applied Research NIHR202869
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionApproximately 85% of women who undergo vaginal birth sustain childbirth-related perineal trauma. Worldwide, 21% of women give birth by cesarean section. These wounds therefore affect the vast majority of women after birth; however, there is a lack of validated tools to accurately identify women with abnormal wound healing in the postpartum period. Consequently, in clinical settings, validated wound-assessment tools are not generally used to assess wound healing in this population. We performed a scoping review to identify and characterize wound-assessment tools that have been used to determine the healing of childbirth-related wounds in existing research (to include women who experience perineal trauma or a cesarean section). MATERIAL AND

methodsMedline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to April 2024. Studies were included where wound-assessment tools were used to assess wound healing, after women had sustained either childbirth-related perineal trauma or a cesarean section, as an outcome of a primary research article. For studies that assessed wound healing in women with perineal trauma, this included all types of childbirth-related perineal trauma, sustained at spontaneous or assisted vaginal birth. Studies were eligible for inclusion where the wound-assessment tool was used at any time-point in the postpartum period.

resultsThere were 95 studies eligible for inclusion; 72 of which utilized wound-assessment tools for the assessment of healing after women sustained childbirth-related perineal trauma and 23 for women with cesarean section wounds. The REEDA tool (redness, oedema, ecchymosis, discharge, approximation) was used in 91 of the 95 studies, with the remainder using alternative wound-assessment tools, including the use of the ASEPSIS tool (additional treatment, serous discharge, erythema, purulent exudate, separation of deep tissues, isolation of bacteria, and length of inpatient stay).

conclusionsThere are limited wound-assessment tools to determine healing after women sustain childbirth-related wounds. The REEDA tool is the most commonly used in research settings. There is a clear need for the development of a clinically robust and inclusive wound- assessment tools, which comprehensively reflect the postpartum healing process among diverse populations.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionPerineumWound HealingFemaleHumansPostpartum PeriodPregnancybirth‐related woundchildbirthepisiotomyperineal tearperineal traumaperineal woundsvaginal birthwound‐assessment toolwound infection

Identifiers

PMID41217016
PMCPMC12746225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.