Skip to main content
. 2013 Sep 23;11:209. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-209

Table 6.

Assessing sustainability: comparison of group A clusters in phase 3 with group B (late intervention) clusters in phase 2

  Mean Difference (95% CI)a,b P-valuec
Sutures removed, %
1.9% (−0.8% to 8.1%)
0.18
Perineal wound infection since birth, %
1.0% (−4.0% to 6.1%)
0.66
Use of continuous non-locking suturing technique for vaginal wall, %
−3.5% (−17.2% to 10.1%)
0.57
Use of continuous non-locking suturing technique for muscle layer, %
5.1% (−9.3% to 19.5%)
0.44
Use of subcuticular suturing technique for perineal skin, %
−5.8% (−17.8% to 6.1%)
0.30
Use of evidence-based management technique for all layers, %d
1.7% (−16.0% to 19.4%)
0.84
Use of rapidly absorbable polyglactin suture, %
−9.4% (−32.4% to 13.7%)
0.38
Women who received post-natal leaflet, % −34.5% (−54.2% to −14.8%) 0.003

aMean difference = mean in B clusters – mean in A clusters. Negative mean differences indicate values were on average higher in the group A (early intervention) clusters.

bOne cluster had no data at phase 3, and so this cluster and its pair were excluded (9 degrees of freedom).

cPaired t-test.

dFor this variable one additional cluster had no data, and so this cluster and its pair were excluded (8 degrees of freedom).