The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Episiotomy for vaginal birth
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Episiotomy is done to prevent severe perineal tears, but its routine use has been questioned. The relative effects of midline compared with midlateral episiotomy are unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of restrictive use of episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy during vaginal birth. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing restrictive use of episiotomy with routine use of episiotomy; restrictive use of mediolateral episiotomy versus routine mediolateral episiotomy; restrictive use of midline episiotomy versus routine midline episiotomy; and use of midline episiotomy versus mediolateral episiotomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies were included. In the routine episiotomy group, 72.7% (1752/2409) of women had episiotomies, while the rate in the restrictive episiotomy group was 27.6% (673/2441). Compared with routine use, restrictive episiotomy involved less posterior perineal trauma (relative risk 0. 88, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.92), less suturing (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.77) and fewer healing complications (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.85). Restrictive episiotomy was associated with more anterior perineal trauma (relative risk 1.79, 95% 1.55 to 2.07). There was no difference in severe vaginal or perineal trauma (relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.50); dyspareunia (relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.16); urinary incontinence (relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.20) or several pain measures. Results for restrictive versus routine mediolateral versus midline episiotomy were similar to the overall comparison. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive episiotomy policies appear to have a number of benefits compared to routine episiotomy policies. There is less posterior perineal trauma, less suturing and fewer complications, no difference for most pain measures and severe vaginal or perineal trauma, but there was an increased risk of anterior perineal trauma with restrictive episiotomy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Promoting childbirth companions in South Africa: a randomised pilot study
Brown, H., Hofmeyr, G. J., Nikodem, V. C., Smith, H., & Garner, P. (2007) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-5-7 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Carroli, G., & Belizan, J.
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
- Published
- 1999-07-26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- CD000081-CD000081
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4243733348
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 0
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Episiotomy for vaginal birth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd000081
- The paper
- Carroli, G., & Belizan, J. (1999). Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000081
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.