Does the Finnish intervention prevent obstetric anal sphincter injuries? A systematic review of the literature

39Citations
Citations of this article
99Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: A rise in obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) has been observed and a preventive approach, originating in Finland, has been introduced in several European hospitals. The aim of this paper was to systematically evaluate the evidence behind the 'Finnish intervention'. Design: A systematic review of the literature conducted according to the Preferred Reporting for Sytematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was OASIS. Secondary outcomes were (perinatal): Apgar scores, pH and standard base excess in the umbilical cord, and (maternal): episiotomy, intact perineum, first and second-degree perineal lacerations, duration of second stage, birth position and women's perceptions/birth experiences. Methods: Multiple databases (Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed and SveMed) were systematically searched for studies published up to December 2014. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies were excluded if a full-text article was not available. Studies were evaluated by use of international reporting guidelines (eg, STROBE). Results: Overall, 1042 articles were screened and 65 retrieved for full-text evaluation. Seven studies, all observational and with a level of evidence at 2c or lower, were included and consistently reported a significant reduction in OASIS. All evaluated episiotomy and found a significant increase. Three studies evaluated perinatal outcomes and reported conflicting results. No study reported on other perineal outcomes, duration of the second stage, birth positions or women's perceptions. Conclusions: A reduction in OASIS has been contributed to the Finnish intervention in seven observational studies, all with a low level of evidence. Knowledge about the potential perinatal and maternal side effects and women's perceptions of the intervention is extremely limited and the biological mechanisms underlying the Finnish intervention are not well documented. Studies with a high level of evidence are needed to assess the effects of the intervention before implementation in clinical settings can be recommended.

References Powered by Scopus

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.

14219Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

7098Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact

729Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Risk factors for perineal and vaginal tears in primiparous women – the prospective POPRACT-cohort study

61Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Midwives’ Management during the Second Stage of Labor in Relation to Second-Degree Tears—An Experimental Study

50Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury increases with maternal age irrespective of parity: A population-based register study

42Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Poulsen, M. O., Madsen, M. L., Skriver-Møller, A. C., & Overgaard, C. (2015). Does the Finnish intervention prevent obstetric anal sphincter injuries? A systematic review of the literature. BMJ Open. BMJ Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008346

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 29

60%

Researcher 12

25%

Professor / Associate Prof. 5

10%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 28

51%

Nursing and Health Professions 23

42%

Social Sciences 2

4%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2

4%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 8

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free