Risk of infection and wound dehiscence after use of prophylactic antibiotics in episiotomy or second degree tear (REPAIR study): single centre, double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Risk of infection and wound dehiscence after use of prophylactic antibiotics in episiotomy or second degree tear (REPAIR study): single centre, double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial.
Item: Risk of infection and wound dehiscence after use of prophylactic antibiotics in episiotomy or second degree tear (REPAIR study): single centre, double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Perslev K, Klarskov N, Bergholt T, Jangö H

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.5★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Risk of infection and wound dehiscence after use of prophylactic antibiotics in episiotomy or second degree tear (REPAIR study): single centre, double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

3.5 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 4 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced4 types

Overstated conclusions3

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Data authenticity concerns1

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported RCT with rigorous design, clear ethical approvals, and open data/code. The main weaknesses are minor reporting gaps (e.g., timing of antibiotic administration not recorded, retrospective registration) and a few copyedit issues.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional (RCT) and agreed on all dimensions. The statistics verification recomputed only 2 tests (those with test statistics/df or effect estimates with CIs); exact p-values from Fisher's test were not machine-verified. The citation check found no retracted or unresolved references. The integrity check flagged retrospective registration, which is noted in reporting transparency.

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks.

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The paper cites a Cochrane review on prophylactic antibiotics for obstetric anal sphincter injury and a 2017 Cochrane review on episiotomy, noting methodological limitations and insufficient evidence. It also references the ANODE trial and WHO recommendations, building a rationale for the study. The premise is well-supported by the cited evidence, and limitations of prior studies (e.g., high loss to follow-up, lack of placebo control) are explicitly acknowledged.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The introduction establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited, a logical rationale, and acknowledgment of limitations in prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 1-3]

“A Cochrane review evaluated prophylactic antibiotics for obstetric anal sphincter injury, but included only one randomised controlled trial, which reported a reduction in healing complications from 24% to 8% following a single intravenous dose of antibiotics. The loss to follow-up was high, prompting the authors to recommend cautious data interpretation.”