Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour

Vittorio Basevi; Tina Lavender

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001236.pub2

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rasurado perineal sistemático al ingreso en trabajo de parto

Información

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001236.pub2 Copiar DOI

Base de datos:

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Versión publicada:

14 noviembre 2014see what's new

Tipo:

Intervention

Etapa:

Review

Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

Grupo Cochrane de Embarazo y parto

Copyright:

Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

Vittorio Basevi

Correspondencia a: SaPeRiDoc, Primary health care, general medicine, planning and development of health services, Emilia‐Romagna Regional health authority, Bologna, Italy

[email protected]
Tina Lavender

School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Contributions of authors

Vittorio Basevi wrote the protocol and Tina Lavender commented. Tina Lavender and Vittorio Basevi wrote the review. Vittorio Basevi extracted the data and Tina Lavender checked the data.

Vittorio Basevi drafted the 2014 updated and Tina Lavender commented on drafts.

Sources of support

Internal sources

Direzione generale sanità e politiche sociali,Regione Emilia‐Romagna,Bologna, Italy.

External sources

UNDP‐UNFPA‐UNICEF‐WHO‐World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization, Switzerland.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

This Cochrane review updates the pre‐Cochrane review undertaken by Prof Mary Renfrew in 1995 (Renfrew 1995).

We acknowledge Prof Zarko Alfirevic for his support and guidance and Dr Simona Di Mario for her support on the previous update of this review (Basevi 2000).

We would like to thank Erika Ota for her support in the creation of the 'Summary of findings' table for this update. Erika Ota's work was financially supported by the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Reproductive Health and Research (RHR), World Health Organization. The named authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2014 Nov 14

Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour

Review

Vittorio Basevi, Tina Lavender

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001236.pub2

2000 Oct 23

Routine perineal shaving on admission in labour

Review

Vittorio Basevi, Tina Lavender

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001236

Differences between protocol and review

The methods have been updated for the 2014 update and the quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE in order to assess the quality of the body of evidence relating to key outcomes. We added 'side‐effects' as a non‐prespecified outcome.

Keywords

MeSH

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords

Medical Subject Headings Check Words

Female; Humans; Pregnancy;

PICO

Population

Intervention

Comparison

Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Figure 1

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving, Outcome 1 Postpartum maternal febrile morbidity.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving, Outcome 2 Colonisation.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving, Outcome 3 Neonatal infection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving, Outcome 4 Wound infection.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving, Outcome 5 Wound dehiscence.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving, Outcome 11 Maternal satisfaction continuous data.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Summary of findings for the main comparison. routine perineal shaving before childbirth for women in labour

Routine perineal shaving before childbirth for women in labour
Population: Women in labour Settings: Hospitals in US (Baltimore, Dallas) and Thailand (Bangkok) Intervention: Routine perineal shaving before childbirth versus clipping of long pubic hairs or cutting of perineal hairs
Outcomes	*Illustrative comparative risks (95% CI)**		Relative effect (95% CI)	No of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Routine perineal shaving before childbirth
Postpartum maternal febrile morbidity	Study population		RR 1.16 (0.74 to 1.80)	997 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2
	67 per 1000	77 per 1000 (48 to 119)
	Low
	18 per 1000	20 per 1000 (12 to 33)
	High
	124 per 1000	141 per 1000 (90 to 213)
Neonatal infection	Study population		Not estimable	458 (1 study)	see comment	The outcome was reported with no events.
	See comment	See comment
	Moderate

Wound infection	Study population		RR 1.47 (0.80 to 2.70)	458 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low³
	70 per 1000	103 per 1000 (57 to 180)
	Moderate
	70 per 1000	103 per 1000 (56 to 179)
Maternal satisfaction Scale from 1 to 5	The mean maternal satisfaction in the control groups was 3.8 (five degrees)⁴	The mean maternal satisfaction in the intervention groups was 0 higher (0.13 lower to 0.13 higher)	MD 0.00 (‐0.13, 0.13)	458 (1 study)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low⁵
The basis for the assumed risk* (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
¹ Most studies contributing data had serious design limitations. ² Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect. ³The total cumulative study population is not very small (sample size 458) and the total number of events is 40, but the 95% confidence interval is very wide. ⁴Likert scales on five degrees to measure a women's intensity of satisfaction (5, excellent; 4, good; 3, average; 2, fair; and 1, poor). ⁵Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect and small sample size.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. routine perineal shaving before childbirth for women in labour

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Postpartum maternal febrile morbidity Show forest plot	3	997	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.14 [0.73, 1.76]

2 Colonisation Show forest plot	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only

2.1 Gram‐positive	1	150	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.16 [0.82, 1.64]
2.2 Gram‐negative	1	150	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.70, 0.98]
3 Neonatal infection Show forest plot	1	458	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Wound infection Show forest plot	1	458	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.47 [0.80, 2.70]

5 Wound dehiscence Show forest plot	1	458	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.33 [0.01, 8.00]

6 Need for wound resuturing	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
7 Discomfort	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
8 Pain	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
9 Maternal embarrassment	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
10 Maternal satisfaction	0	0	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
11 Maternal satisfaction continuous data Show forest plot	1	458	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [‐0.13, 0.13]

Comparison 1. Perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Rasurado perineal sistemático al ingreso en trabajo de parto

Información