MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969478315 · doi:10.1111/jmwh.13020

Randomized Trial of 3 Techniques of Perineal Skin Closure During Second‐Degree Perineal Laceration Repair

2019· article· en· W2969478315 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carolyn W. Swenson, Lisa Kane Low, Katherine M. Kowalk, Dee E. Fenner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Midwifery & Women s Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialSurgeryFibrous jointVisual analogue scaleMcGill Pain QuestionnaireAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Perineal lacerations during childbirth are common, and suturing the perineal skin during repair has been associated with increased postpartum pain. This study sought to test the hypothesis that no difference in postpartum perineal pain exists between 3 methods of skin closure for second-degree repair: suture, no suture, and surgical glue. METHODS: A single-blind randomized controlled trial of women after vaginal birth who had a second-degree perineal laceration was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital from August 2014 to April 2017. Women were randomized to perineal skin closure with suture, no suture, or surgical glue using a 1:1:1 allocation. Pain was assessed using the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), and Present Pain Index (PPI) at one day, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months postpartum. Wound healing was assessed at 6 weeks using the Redness, Edema, Ecchymosis, Drainage, Approximation (REEDA) scale. Pain scores were compared across groups using a chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, or analysis of variance where appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 35 women were randomized: 14 received suture, 11 had no suture, and 10 received surgical glue for perineal skin repair. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 2 weeks postpartum, women with suture had higher median pain scores on the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (15.0 suture vs 2.0 glue vs 2.0 no suture, P = .03) and VAS (50.0 suture vs 3.0 glue vs 7.0 no suture, P = .02). Significant differences in pain were not seen on the PPI. At 3 months, women in the suture group had higher median pain scores on the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire compared with surgical glue (1.0 vs 0, P = .04). Wound healing was similar across groups (REEDA score: 0 suture vs 1.0 no suture, vs 0 surgical glue, P = .24). DISCUSSION: Compared with no suture and surgical glue, suturing the perineal skin was associated with the highest postpartum pain scores.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Midwifery & Women s HealthSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207