Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 288, Issue 6, pp 1285–1293 | Cite as

Can major systematic reviews influence practice patterns? A case study of episiotomy trends

  • Yu-Chu Shen
  • Wee Chung Sim
  • Aaron B. Caughey
  • David H. Howard
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



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.


Episiotomy Practice pattern Interrupted time series regression models 


  1. 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. 2.
    DeLee JB (1920) The prophylactic forceps operation. Trans Am Gynecol Soc 45:66–83Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sleep J, Grant A, Garcia J, Elbourne D, Spencer J, Chalmers I (1984) West Berkshire perineal management trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 289(6445):587–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sleep J, Grant A (1987) West Berkshire perineal management trial: three year follow up. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 295(6601):749–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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
  7. 7.
    Sartore A, De Seta F, Maso G, Pregazzi R, Grimaldi E, Guaschino S (2004) The effects of mediolateral episiotomy on pelvic floor function after vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 103(4):669–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oliphant SS, Jones KA, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL (2010) Trends over time with commonly performed obstetric and gynecologic inpatient procedures. Obstet Gynecol 116(4):926–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Srinivas SK, Epstein AJ, Nicholson S, Herrin J, Asch DA (2010) Improvements in US maternal obstetrical outcomes from 1992 to 2006. Med Care 48(5):487–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frankman EA, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL (2009) Episiotomy in the United States: has anything changed? Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(5):573 e1–573 e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp J Jr, Lohr KN (2005) Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. JAMA 293(17):2141–2148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carroli G, Belizan J, Stamp G (1999) Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Birth 26(4):263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paintin DB (1990) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 97(11):967–973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Callister LC, Hobbins-Garbett D (2000) Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth database: resource for evidence-based practice. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs JOGNN/NAACOG 29(2):123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stein R (2005) Procedure on women in labor adds risk; study urges halt to episiotomies. Washington PostGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wall Street Journal (2005) Childbirth incision doesn’t help. Wall Street Journal, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Los Angeles Times (2005) Study says birth cut rarely helps. Los Angeles Times, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johnson C (2005) Researchers call for end to estimated 1 million unneeded episiotomies. The Associated Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    CBS News (2005) Study finding that episiotomies have no benefit and could cause harmful injuries. CBS News, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NBC News (2005) Dr. Iffath Hoskins discusses recent research pointing to risks of episiotomy. NBC News Transcripts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    Lappen JR, Gossett DR (2010) Changes in episiotomy practice: evidence-based medicine in action. Exp Rev Obstet Gynecol 5(3):301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Adams AS, Zhang F, LeCates RF, Graves AJ, Ross-Degnan D, Gilden D et al (2009) Prior authorization for antidepressants in Medicaid: effects among disabled dual enrollees. Arch Intern Med 169(8):750–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dorsey ER, Rabbani A, Gallagher SA, Conti RM, Alexander GC (2010) Impact of FDA black box advisory on antipsychotic medication use. Arch Intern Med 170(1):96–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gillings D, Makuc D, Siegel E (1981) Analysis of interrupted time series mortality trends: an example to evaluate regionalized perinatal care. Am J Public Health 71(1):38–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buchmueller T, Jacobson M, Wold C (2006) How far to the hospital? The effect of hospital closures on access to care. J Health Econ 25(4):740–761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greene WH (2008) Econometric analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stock JH, Watson MW (2006) Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. NBER technical working paper series no. 0323. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    StataCorp (2009) Stata statistical software: release 11. StataCorp LP, College StationGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Webb DA, Culhane J (2002) Time of day variation in rates of obstetric intervention to assist in vaginal delivery. J Epidemiol Community Health 56(8):577–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robinson JN, Norwitz ER, Cohen AP, Lieberman E (2000) Predictors of episiotomy use at first spontaneous vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 96(2):214–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 33.
    Duffy SQ, Farley DE (1992) The protracted demise of medical technology. The case of intermittent positive pressure breathing. Med Care 30(8):718–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Howard DH, Kenline C, Lazarus HM, Lemaistre CF, Maziarz RT, McCarthy PL Jr et al (2011) Abandonment of high-dose chemotherapy/hematopoietic cell transplants for breast cancer following negative trial results. Health Serv Res 46(6pt1):1762–1777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 36.
    Howard D, Brophy R, Howell S (2012) Evidence of no benefit from knee surgery for osteoarthritis led to coverage changes and is linked to decline in procedures. Health Aff (Project Hope) 31(10):2242–2249CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu-Chu Shen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wee Chung Sim
    • 1
  • Aaron B. Caughey
    • 3
  • David H. Howard
    • 4
  1. 1.Graduate School of Business and Public PolicyNaval Postgraduate SchoolMontereyUSA
  2. 2.National Bureau of Economic ResearchCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyOregon Health and Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health Policy and ManagementEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations