| Title |
Impact of subsequent birth and delivery mode for women with previous OASIS: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-016-3226-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara S. Webb, Derick Yates, Margarita Manresa, Matthew Parsons, Christine MacArthur, Khaled M. K. Ismail |
| Abstract |
Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) are serious complications of vaginal birth. In a pregnancy following OASIS women may be keen to avoid an elective caesarean section, yet cautious about pursuing another vaginal birth that may result in further damage to the pelvic floor and possible long-term anal incontinence. This review aimed to evaluate the impact of subsequent birth and its mode on anal incontinence (AI) and/or quality of life (QoL), for women with previous OASIS. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and AMED from inception to February 2016 were undertaken with selection criteria of any study evaluating the effect of a subsequent birth on AI and/or QoL in women with previous OASIS. Where possible, data were extracted to populate 2 × 2 tables and allow meta-analysis relating to the impact of subsequent birth on AI and/or QoL. Twenty-seven non-randomised studies were included. Meta-analysis of 14 studies (977 women) did not demonstrate any significant associations between AI in women with previous OASIS and subsequent birth or its mode. Impact on QoL was reported in 12 studies (912 women); however, difference in outcome reporting precluded data meta-analysis. Comparisons of outcomes and effective synthesis were limited by sample size, quality and heterogeneity of the studies included. Consequently, the optimal mode of delivery for women with previous OASIS is still not known and better data are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 25% |
| Unknown | 23 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2020.
All research outputs
#6,754,036
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#604
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,652
of 421,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#14
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.