Comments on the included studies
| Study | Evidence level | Shortcomings of study design | Shortcomings of data provided | Limitations/strengths as presented by study authors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pirhonen et al 19985 | 2c | The Finnish manoeuvre is not predefined as an outcome | – | No evaluation of the study design and its limitations regarding the interventions causality |
| Laine et al 200828 | 4 | Comparison of two groups not consistent in time | Same data as Stedenfeldt et al 201329 | No evaluation of the study design and its limitations regarding the interventions causality Missing key elements of study design |
| Laine et al 20096 | 2c | – | Overlapping data with Laine et al 20137 | Good integration of results with literature to date |
| Hals et al 201014 | 4 | Comparison of two groups not consistent in time | Same data as Stedenfeldt et al 201329 | No interpretation of the increased use of episiotomy. No evaluation of the study design and its limitations regarding the interventions causality No evaluation of the study's limitations |
| Laine et al 20128 | 4 | Comparison of two groups not consistent in time | – | Thorough evaluation of strengths of the study No evaluation of the study's limitations |
| Laine et al 20137 | 2c | – | Overlapping data with Laine et al 20096 | Thorough evaluation of strengths and limitations regarding study design |
| Stedenfeldt et al 201329 | 4 | – | Same data as Laine et al 2008 28 and Hals et al 201014 | Thorough evaluation of strengths and limitations regarding study design. Presentation of positive and negative results. Thorough presentation of relevant evidence |