Routine vaginal examination vs vaginal examinations: Neonatal infection
Routine vaginal examinations showed no clear difference in neonatal infection (primary outcome)№ of participants: 204(1 RCT) compared with vaginal examinations (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Routine vaginal examinations vs vaginal examinations Neonatal infection (primary outcome)№ of participants: 204(1 RCT) · primiparous pregnant women in labour at term Routine vaginal examinations showed no clear difference in neonatal infection (primary outcome)№ of participants: 204(1 RCT) compared with vaginal examinations (low certainty). Routine vaginal examinations compared to other methods for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes… (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 4.08 [0.46, 35.87] | Not reported | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routine vaginal examinations compared to other methods for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.