ReviewInternational urogynecology journal2026
Episcissors-60 in Obstetrics Anal Sphincter Injury (OASI): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in International urogynecology journal, 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
introduction and hypothesisObstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) can be minimised with appropriate use of episiotomy [1]. Episcissors-60 were designed to improve the accuracy of mediolateral episiotomy [2]. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have recommended research to address the uncertain efficacy of Episcissors-60 in OASI prevention [3]. This systematic review aims to evaluate Episcissors-60 in OASI prevention.
methodsThe review was registered with Prospero-University of York. A literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was performed up to 31 August 2023, without limits and updated March 2025. Included studies had a comparator group: historic or parallel. Studies were screened according to PRISMA protocol [4] by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted for quantitative synthesis using RevMan5.4.1.
resultsEight studies were included in systematic review and meta-analysis. Two studies were randomised; the remainder were observational. Six studies were deemed high quality ≥ 7 Newcastle-Ottawa score. Six out of eight studies reported a reduction in OASI with Episcissors-60. Participants ranged from 63 to 18,880. When data were pooled; there was a significant reduction in OASI rate in total number of vaginal deliveries (RD -0.02, 95% CI[-0.04, -0.01], p = 0.009) with Episcissors-60. However, there was no significant difference in OASI rate in episiotomy deliveries (RD -0.02, 95% CI[-0.05, 0.00], p = 0.10), nor in episiotomy rate (RD 0.01, 95% CI[-0.02, 0.04], p = 0.45).
conclusionAlthough Episcissors-60 did not show a significant reduction in OASI rate in episiotomy deliveries, a protective effect was observed in the overall number of vaginal deliveries. This suggests a potential Hawthorne effect, warranting an adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) for accurate assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42412133What 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.