Effect of second stage perineal warm compresses on perineal pain and outcome among primiparae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of second stage perineal warm compresses on perineal pain and outcome among primiparae. A non-randomized controlled clinical trial was utilized at the labor and delivery unit of National Medical Institution in Damanhour, Albehera Governorate, Egypt. Research was carried out from beginning May 2014 till the end of October 2014, with a total of 160 parturients in their second stage of labor. They were equally randomly divided into study (N = 80) and control (N = 80) groups. Four tools were utilized to collect the necessary data. The first tool was a Socio-demographic and clinical data structured interview schedule. The second tool was a Numerical Pain Rating Score (NPRS), to estimate the subjective level of pain intensity. The third tool was a modified Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), to measure the behavioral responses to pain. The fourth tool was the second stage and perineal outcome assessment tool: to assess duration of the second stage of labor, mode of delivery, need for pain relief during 2nd stage, baby birth weight, perineal condition, degrees of perineal tear and need to repair. The results revealed that perineal pain intensity did statistically significantly decrease among the study group after the intervention ( P = .000). On the other hand, it was slightly increased among the control group after the intervention ( P = .106). There was a statistically significant difference between the study and control groups in favor of the former in relation to perineal tear, vaginal tear, degree of perineal tear and need to repair where P = .000. The study concluded that second stage perineal warm compresses had better effects on perineal pain and perineal outcome. It resulted in less perineal pain and less genital tract trauma as well as decrease needs to repair. Consequently, it is recommended that perineal warm compresses should be incorporated into pain relief and perineal maintaining options available to women during second stage of labor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".