A core outcome set for clinical trials of first- and second-degree perineal tears prevention and treatment: a study protocol for a systematic review and a Delphi survey

Occurrence and risk factors for second-degree perineal tears: A prospective cohort study using a detailed classification system

BACKGROUND

The amount of tissue trauma within second-degree perineal tears varies widely. Therefore, subcategorization of second-degree tears and a better understanding of their occurrence and risk factors are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the occurrence of perineal tears when second-degree tears were subcategorized. Furthermore, we aimed to assess the association between variables related to perineal anatomy and other potential risk factors, with second-degree tear subcategories.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 880 primiparous and multiparous women giving birth to one child vaginally. Perineal tears were categorized using the classification system recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. In addition, second-degree tears were subcategorized as 2A, 2B, or 2C according to the percentage of damage to the perineal body. Selected variables related to perineal anatomy were as follows: length of genital hiatus; perineal body length; and previous perineal trauma. Risk factors for second-degree tear subcategories were analyzed using a multinominal regression model.

RESULTS

Perineal tears occurred as follows: first-degree: 35.6% (n = 313), 2A: 16.3% (n = 143), 2B: 9.1% (n = 80), 2C: 6.6% (n = 58), and third- or fourth-degree: 1.6% (n = 14). In total, 169/880 participants underwent an episiotomy. When episiotomies were excluded, the risk for 2B, or 2C tears increased with smaller genital hiatus, larger perineal body, previous perineal trauma, primiparity, higher gestational age, instrumental vaginal delivery and fetal presentation other than occiput anterior.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of second-degree tear subcategories was 16.3% for 2A tears, 9.1% for 2B tears, and 6.6% for 2C tears. Factors related to perineal anatomy increased the odds for experiencing a second-degree tear in a more severe subcategory.

Development of a core outcome set for cardiovascular diabetology: a methodological framework

Background

Cardiovascular diabetology is an emergent field focusing on all aspects of diabetes/cardiovascular interrelationship and metabolic syndrome. High-quality evidence needs to be provided to determine the efficacy and safety of interventions in cardiovascular diabetology. The heterogeneity of outcomes among trials limits the comparison of results, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to end-users. The cardiovascular diabetology core outcome set (COS) study aims to develop a COS of interventions for cardiovascular diabetology. In this paper, we introduce the methodological framework for developing the COS.

Methods

The COS development will include the following steps: (a) establish the COS groups of stakeholders, including international steering committee, Delphi survey group, and consensus meeting group; (b) systematic reviews of outcomes used in trials of cardiovascular diabetology; (c) semistructured interview of stakeholders for outcomes of cardiovascular diabetology; (d) generate a list of candidate outcomes and determine the original outcome pool; (e) Delphi survey with stakeholders of cardiovascular diabetology to select potential core outcomes; and (f) review and endorse the cardiovascular diabetology COS by expert consensus meeting.

Conclusions

This current study reports the methodological framework to develop a COS in cardiovascular diabetology and will provide evidence for the future development of COS in cardiovascular diabetology.