ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury: an exploratory Norwegian regional cohort study including amniotomy as a potential novel determinant.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
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
backgroundObstetric anal sphincter injury refers to the unintended tearing of the anal sphincter and/or rectal mucosa during vaginal delivery, a complication associated with significant morbidity. Well-known risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury include primiparity, high maternal age, instrumental delivery, oxytocin augmentation, and large fetal size. Recently, we identified amniotomy as a potential novel independent risk factor, regardless of parity. This study aims to further explore whether amniotomy increases the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury including known determinants in singleton vaginal births after 34 weeks of gestation at Innlandet Hospital Trust, using a cohort study design.
methodsRetrospective cohort study using data from the Innlandet Perinatal Database, including all women who had singleton vaginal births after 34 weeks of gestation at Innlandet Hospital Trust from 2012 to 2022. We used multivariate logistic regression models to develop a risk-factor model for obstetric anal sphincter injury employing backward elimination with stratification for parity. We included established risk factors in the models, as well as the novel potential risk factor amniotomy.
resultsThe annual incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury at the hospitals was stable around 2% in the study period and a total of 26,349 births were included. First, amniotomy was not found to be a risk factor for obstetric anal sphincter injury in this contemporary cohort. Second, instrumental delivery was identified as an independent modifiable risk factor for obstetric anal sphincter injury: vacuum extraction presenting relative risks (95% CI) of 2.72 (2.06-3.61) and 3.29 (2.09-5.17) in vaginally primiparous and parous women and forceps 5.97 (3.96-9.00) in vaginally primiparous women. Episiotomy and epidural analgesia were associated with reduced risks of obstetric anal sphincter injury, but only in vaginally primiparous women (relative risks: 0.53 (0.40-0.70) and 0.69 (0.55-0.86)).
conclusionsBased on systematically collected data from our regional birth registry, this cohort study confirmed the association between established risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury, such as instrumental vaginal delivery. However, we could not identify amniotomy as a risk factor for obstetric anal sphincter injury, possibly due to changes in clinical practice and potential data limitations.
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.