| pubmed-article:2658595 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0014586 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0680227 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0205547 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:issue | 5 Pt 1 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1989-6-27 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:abstractText | Episiotomy is routinely used before delivery in the United States. The rationale for routine episiotomy is based on two foundation arguments: that episiotomy reduces perineal trauma and that it prevents subsequent pelvic relaxation. A careful review finds little evidence to support these arguments. Episiotomy may predispose the gravid woman to third- and fourth-degree lacerations. Efforts should be directed to determine whether episiotomy is beneficial. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:commentsCorrections | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:citationSubset | AIM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:month | May | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:issn | 0002-9378 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:BowesW AWAJr | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:ThorpJ MJMJr | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:volume | 160 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:pagination | 1027-30 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2005-11-17 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:2658595-... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:year | 1989 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:articleTitle | Episiotomy: can its routine use be defended? | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:2658595 | pubmed:publicationType | Review | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:2658595 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:2658595 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:2658595 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:2658595 | lld:pubmed |
