Can major systematic reviews influence practice patterns? A case study of episiotomy trends
Episiotomy is one of the most commonly performed procedures among women of childbearing age in the United States. In 2005, a major systematic review conducted by Hartmann and colleagues recommended against routine use of episiotomy and was widely covered in the media. We assessed the impact of the Hartman et al. study on episiotomy trend.
Based on 100 % hospital discharge data from eight states in 2003–2008, we used interrupted time series regression models to estimate the impact of the Hartman et al. review on episiotomy rates. We used mixed-effects regression models to assess whether interhospital variation was reduced over time.
After controlling for underlying trend, episiotomy rates dropped by 1.4 percentage points after Hartman et al. publication (p < 0.01 for spontaneous delivery; p < 0.1 for operative delivery). The publication has smaller effect on government hospitals as compared to private hospitals. Mixed effects models estimated negative correlation between cross-time and cross-hospital variations in episiotomy rates, indicating reduced cross-hospital variation over time.
Our results suggested that there has been a gradual decline in episiotomy rates over the period 2003–2008, and that synthesis of evidence showing harms from routine episiotomy had limited impact on practice patterns in the case of episiotomy. The experience of episiotomy illustrates the challenge of using comparative effectiveness and evidenced-based medicine to reduce use of unnecessary procedures.
KeywordsEpisiotomy Practice pattern Interrupted time series regression models
- 1.National Center for Health Statistics (2011) Health, United States 2010: with special feature on death and dying, vol 2011/06/03. National Center for Health Statistics, HyattsvilleGoogle Scholar
- 2.DeLee JB (1920) The prophylactic forceps operation. Trans Am Gynecol Soc 45:66–83Google Scholar
- 5.Klein MC, Gauthier RJ, Jorgensen SH, Robbins JM, Kaczorowski J, Johnson B et al (1992) Does episiotomy prevent perineal trauma and pelvic floor relaxation? Online J Curr Clin Trials (doc no. 10, 6019 words, 65 paragraphs)Google Scholar
- 6.Argentina Episiotomy Trial Collaborative Group (1993) Routine vs selective episiotomy: a randomised controlled trial. Argentine episiotomy trial collaborative group. Lancet 342(8886–8887):1517–1518Google Scholar
- 15.Stein R (2005) Procedure on women in labor adds risk; study urges halt to episiotomies. Washington PostGoogle Scholar
- 16.Wall Street Journal (2005) Childbirth incision doesn’t help. Wall Street Journal, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 17.Los Angeles Times (2005) Study says birth cut rarely helps. Los Angeles Times, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- 18.Johnson C (2005) Researchers call for end to estimated 1 million unneeded episiotomies. The Associated Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 19.CBS News (2005) Study finding that episiotomies have no benefit and could cause harmful injuries. CBS News, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 20.NBC News (2005) Dr. Iffath Hoskins discusses recent research pointing to risks of episiotomy. NBC News Transcripts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 21.American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ACOG Practice Bulletin (2006) Episiotomy. Clinical management guidelines for Obstetrician–Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 107(4):957–962 (number 71, April 2006)Google Scholar
- 27.Greene WH (2008) Econometric analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
- 29.StataCorp (2009) Stata statistical software: release 11. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
- 32.Martin JAHB, Ventura SJ et al (2011) Births: final data for 2009. National vital statistics reports, vol. 60, no. 1. National Center for Health Statistics, HyattsvilleGoogle Scholar
- 35.Howard DH, Shen Y (2013) Trends in PCI volume after negative results from a comparative effectiveness research trial. Health Serv Res (forthcoming)Google Scholar