Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no treatment for perineal tear for third‐ and fourth‐degree perineal tear during vaginal birth

Patient or population: Women with third‐ and fourth‐degree perineal tear during vaginal birth
Settings: A hospital in USA
Intervention: Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no treatment for perineal tear

Infection rate at 2 weeks postpartum ‐ perineal wound infection in third‐ or fourth‐degree tear

RR 0.34
(0.12 to 0.96)

107
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate^1,2

Infection rate at 6 weeks postpartum ‐ perineal wound infection in third‐ or fourth‐degree tear

RR 0.38
(0.13 to 1.09)

128
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low^1,2,3

Fever or puerperal febrile morbidity

0 study

See comment

This outcome was not reported in the one included study.

*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;

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.