SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of physical interventions for preventing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Perineal trauma during vaginal delivery affects most primiparous women, causing significant maternal morbidity including chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and impaired quality of life. While various physical interventions have been proposed for prevention, their comparative effectiveness remains unclear due to limited head-to-head trials. This Bayesian network meta-analysis systematically compared the efficacy and safety of all available physical interventions for preventing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials comparing physical interventions including massage, warm compresses, exercise, hands-on/off techniques, lubrication, education, or their combinations for perineal protection. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed using R Studio. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to rank interventions. Results: Thirty-one randomized controlled trials involving 10,745 participants across 15 countries were included, of whom the majority were primiparous women with term singleton pregnancies enrolled in high-resource settings. For overall perineal laceration prevention, antenatal pelvic floor exercise ranked first (RR = 0.50, 95%CrI 0.28-0.87; SUCRA = 86.58%); for episiotomy prevention, massage combined with warm compresses ranked first (RR = 0.53, 95%CrI 0.28-0.93; SUCRA = 90.08%); for intact perineum promotion, massage demonstrated statistically significant superiority (RR = 1.93, 95%CrI 1.16-3.29); for severe perineal pain reduction, warm compresses had the highest SUCRA probability (SUCRA = 74.51%), though pain findings are exploratory given sparse network structures and wide credible intervals. All physical interventions demonstrated excellent neonatal safety. Education-only interventions showed no protective effects (RR = 1.03). Conclusion: Antenatal pelvic floor exercise represents the optimal first-line prevention strategy with 50% risk reduction. For women without prior training, warm compresses and intrapartum massage provide effective alternatives. Findings for pain outcomes should be interpreted as exploratory. Broader implementation of evidence-based physical interventions as evidence-informed strategies could help reduce the burden of perineal trauma, particularly among primiparous women in well-resourced settings, though generalizability to multiparous women and low-resource environments requires further investigation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42025633266.
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.