Postpartum Perineal Pain in the Absence of Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries: A Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of perineal pain at early postnatal period and to assess the association between maternal, obstetric or neonatal variables and perineal pain.
 METHODS Three hundred and six women were followed up for perineal pain with present pain intensity (PPI) and visual rating scale (VRS) components of the validated short-form McGill pain scale. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify which characteristics of the patients and neonates were independent determinants of perineal pain.
 RESULTS The incidence of perineal pain at days 1 and 7 postpartum was 88.2% and 24.9%, respectively. PPI was mild 63.1% (day 1) and 23.9% (day 7), moderate 24.2% and 1.1%, and severe 1% and 0%. VRS score was 2 (1-3) at day 1 and 0 (0-1) at day 7 postpartum, respectively. Perineal pain was more common in primiparous women with higher BMI, more maternal weight gain, received epidural analgesia, and use of episiotomy. In a multivariate logistic regression model, only episiotomy predicted the pain at day 1 postpartum (RR=2.05, 95% CI 0.95-4.42) suggesting that women with mediolateral episiotomy experienced more intense pain than women with median episiotomy.
 CONCLUSIONS In the absence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries, although perineal pain during the early postnatal period is prevalent, the intensity is slight. Moreover, the use of episiotomy is associated with more perineal pain than other perineal trauma.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".