Patient or population: women with episiotomy repair following vaginal birth

Settings: public hospital, Brazil

Intervention: antibiotic prophylaxis with oral chloramphenicol 500 mg four times daily for 72 hours after episiotomy repair

Comparison: no treatment

Incidence of episiotomy wound infection with wound dehiscence

RR 0.13
(0.01 to 2.28)

73
(1 quasi‐RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low^1,2

Incidence of episiotomy wound dehiscence without wound infection

RR 0.82
(0.29 to 2.34)

73
(1 quasi‐RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low^1,2

Incidence of puerperal infection (endometritis)

not estimable

73
(1 quasi‐RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low^1,3

There were no events in either group.

Incidence of severe maternal infectious morbidity

‐

0
(0 RCT)

‐

trial did not measure this outcome

Discomfort or pain at episiotomy wound site

‐

0
(0 RCT)

‐

trial did not measure this outcome

Women's satisfaction with care

‐

0
(0 RCT)

‐

trial did not measure this outcome

Adverse effects of antibiotics

‐

0
(0 RCT)

‐

trial did not measure this outcome

*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.