Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour

McCandlish, Rona, Bowler, Ursula, van Asten, Hedwig, Berridge, Georgina, Winter, Cathy, Sames, Lesley, Garcia, Jo, Renfrew, Mary, Elbourne, Diana·1998·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective To compare the effect of two methods of perineal management used during spontaneous vaginal delivery on the prevalence of perineal pain reported at 10 days after birth. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Two English maternity care units. Sample 5471 women who gave birth between December 1994 and December 1996. Methods At the end of the second stage of labour women were allocated to either the ‘hands on’ method, in which the midwife's hands put pressure on the baby's head and support (‘guard’) the perineum; lateral flexion is then used to facilitate delivery of the shoulders, or the ‘hands poised’ method, in which the midwife keeps her hands poised, not touching the head or perineum, allowing spontaneous delivery of the shoulders. Main outcome measure Perineal pain in the previous 24 hours reported by women in self‐administered questionnaire 10 days after birth. Results Questionnaires were completed by 97% of women at 10 days after birth. 910 (34.1%) women in the ‘hands poised’ group reported pain in the previous 24 hours compared with 823 (31.1%) in the ‘hands on’ group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18: absolute difference 3%, 0.5% to 5%, P = 0.02). The rate of episiotomy was significantly lower in the ‘hands poised’ group (RR 0.79, 99% C1 0.65 to 0.96, P= 0.008) but the rate of manual removal of placenta was significantly higher (RR 1.69, 99% CI 1.02 to 2.78; P= 0.008). There were no other statistically significant differences detected between the two methods. Conclusion The reduction in pain observed in the ‘hands on’ group was statistically significant and the difference detected potentially affects a substantial number of women. These results provide evidence to enable individual women and health professionals to decide which perineal management is preferable.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10004.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
McCandlish, R., Bowler, U., van Asten, H., Berridge, G., Winter, C., Sames, L., Garcia, J., Renfrew, M., & Elbourne, D.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-12
Volume
105
Issue
12
Pages
1262-1272
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2085051179
Cited by
306
References
0
FWCI
10.52
Type
journal article
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: A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10004.x
The paper
McCandlish, R., Bowler, U., van Asten, H., Berridge, G., Winter, C., Sames, L., Garcia, J., Renfrew, M., & Elbourne, D. (1998). A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10004.x

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.