ReviewInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Detection of obstetric anal sphincter injuries: From the fear of malpractice to a quality indicator of a center.
Review in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Detection of obstetric anal sphincter injuries: From the fear of malpractice to a quality indicator of a center.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) constitute a significant complication in vaginal childbirth, affecting up to 26% of deliveries and representing the leading cause of anal incontinence among women. Despite their prevalence and serious long-term consequences, OASIs remain widely underreported, partly because of clinicians' hesitancy linked to fear of litigation, peer criticism, and a pervasive culture that discourages disclosure of adverse events. Recent evidence emphasizes that underreporting exacerbates rather than mitigates legal risks and patient harm, underscoring the urgent need for systemic changes. This article reviews critical factors contributing to OASI underreporting, including inadequate clinical training, inconsistent national guidelines, variable litigation landscapes, and differing diagnostic practices across European healthcare systems. Examples from the UK, Poland, Sweden, Norway, France, Italy, the Czech Republic, and Belgium demonstrate significant variations in prevention strategies, diagnostic accuracy, and management protocols, reflecting uneven progress and highlighting opportunities for standardized care improvements. These national discrepancies in OASI definitions, classification, and reporting thresholds may lead to significant inconsistencies in both clinical outcomes and statistical comparisons across healthcare systems. Implementing structured training, standardized protocols, multidisciplinary collaboration, and transparent reporting systems are essential for improving maternal outcomes and reducing litigation risks. Encouraging an institutional culture of accountability and openness will support continuous improvement, ensuring enhanced patient safety and quality care across global healthcare systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.