↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic prophylaxis for episiotomy repair following vaginal birth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
25 tweeters


18 Dimensions

Readers on

240 Mendeley
Antibiotic prophylaxis for episiotomy repair following vaginal birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012136.pub2
Pubmed ID

Mercedes Bonet, Erika Ota, Chioma E Chibueze, Olufemi T Oladapo


Bacterial infections occurring during labour, childbirth, and the puerperium may be associated with considerable maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Antibiotic prophylaxis might reduce wound infection incidence after an episiotomy, particularly in situations associated with a higher risk of postpartum perineal infection, such as midline episiotomy, extension of the incision, or in settings where the baseline risk of infection after vaginal birth is high. However, available evidence is unclear concerning the role of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing infections after an episiotomy. To assess whether routine antibiotic prophylaxis before or immediately after incision or repair of episiotomy for women with an uncomplicated vaginal birth, compared with either placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis, prevents maternal infectious morbidities and improves outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 24 July 2017, and screened reference lists of retrieved studies. We considered randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared the use of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for incision or repair of an episiotomy for women with otherwise normal vaginal births, compared with either placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. We only found one quasi-randomised trial that met the inclusion criteria and was included in the analysis, therefore, we did not perform a meta-analysis. We included one quasi-RCT (with data from 73 women) in the review. The trial, which was conducted in a public hospital in Brazil, compared oral chloramphenicol 500 mg four times daily for 72 hours after episiotomy repair (N = 34) and no treatment (N = 39). We assessed most of the domains at high risk of bias because women were randomised according to even and odd numbers, allocation concealment was based on protocol number, there was no treatment or placebo administered in the control group, we were unclear about the blinding of outcome assessments, and outcomes were incompletely reported. We considered the other domains to be at low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for very serious design limitations (related to lack of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding) and imprecision of effect estimates (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals (CI) of effect estimates).We found very low-quality evidence, from one trial of 73 women, that there was no clear indication that prophylactic antibiotics reduced the incidence of episiotomy wound dehiscence with infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28), or without infection (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.34). No cases of other puerperal infections (e.g. endometritis) were reported in either the antibiotic or control group.The trial did not report on any of the secondary outcomes of interest for this review, including severe maternal infectious morbidity, discomfort or pain at the episiotomy wound site, sexual function postpartum, adverse effects of antibiotics, costs of care, women's satisfaction with care, and individual antimicrobial resistance. There was insufficient evidence to assess the clinical benefits or harms of routine antibiotic prophylaxis for episiotomy repair after normal birth. The only trial included in this review had several methodological limitations, with very serious limitations in design, and imprecision of effect estimates. In addition, the trial tested an antibiotic with limited application in current clinical practice. There is a need for a careful and rigorous assessment of the comparative benefits and harms of prophylactic antibiotics on infection morbidity after episiotomy, in well-designed randomised controlled trials, using common antibiotics and regimens in current obstetric practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 240 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Researcher 25 10%
Other 14 6%
Student > Postgraduate 14 6%
Other 37 15%
Unknown 90 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 13%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 94 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 15 April 2021.
All research outputs
of 22,503,967 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 344,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,503,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 344,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 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 69% of its contemporaries.