ArticleBMJ open2026
Women's experiences of wound dehiscence of a second-degree perineal tear and choice of treatment in Denmark: a qualitative interview study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to describe women's experiences of perineal wound dehiscence of a second-degree perineal tear and choice of resuturing or conservative treatment in the first two months after birth.
designA qualitative descriptive study using individual semistructured interviews was conducted. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis approach to explore women's experiences and perspectives on dehisced perineal wounds of a second-degree perineal tear. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed concurrently with data collection.
settingPerineal clinics at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at two large University Hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark.
participants17 women with dehisced perineal wound of a second-degree perineal tear.
resultsThree main themes were identified: (1) The unforeseen troubles: for the women with perineal wound dehiscence, the pain intensified immensely after the birth. It was an unexpected complication, and it affected the women negatively in various ways. (2) The emotional turmoil: it was a crisis for the women that their lower bodies were not intact. They were terrified, and they wondered if they had themselves to blame. Most women emphasised that choosing between resuturing or conservative treatment was a difficult and lonely decision. (3) Living with changes: regardless of treatment approach, women in both groups reported gradually managing their complicated healing and pain, but were concerned about their genitals and future births.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that wound dehiscence was related to a painful postpartum period and an altered body image, and that the women generally found choosing between resuturing or conservative treatment difficult.
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.