SynthesisBMJ open2014
Effects of female genital cutting on physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
117 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Deinfibulation for improving obstetric, neonatal, gynecologic, and sexual health outcomes in women and girls with type III female genital mutilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring the health complications of female genital mutilation through a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence of female genital mutilation and associated factors among women and girls in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Unexplored avenues: a narrative review of cognition and mood in postmenopausal African women with female genital circumcision/mutilation/cutting.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Views of female genital mutilation survivors, men and health-care professionals on timing of deinfibulation surgery and NHS service provision: qualitative FGM Sister Study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Painful gynecologic and obstetric complications of female genital mutilation/cutting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Medical care for migrant children in Europe: a practical recommendation for first and follow-up appointments.European journal of pediatrics · 2019Guideline
- Is female genital mutilation/cutting associated with adverse mental health consequences? A systematic review of the evidence.BMJ global health · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of health education as an intervention designed to prevent female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C): a systematic review.Reproductive health · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Maternal education-related inequality in female genital mutilation/cutting among daughters aged 0-14 years in three East African countries: DHS data from 2016-2022.Global health action · 2026Article
- Article
- IUGA International Guidelines on Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Understanding the implementation of specialist maternity services for pregnant women with FGM/C in Germany: a situation analysis applying normalization process theory.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Determinants of female genital mutilation among daughters in Ethiopia: a negative binomial regression approach.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Decisional Conflict in Regarding Deinfibulation in Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Article
- Female genital mutilation/cutting experiences and attitudes among women from countries with high prevalence of FGM/C living in the United States: findings from the women's health needs study.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Article
- "Frontiers in global women's health · 2026Article
57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWorldwide, an estimated 125 million girls and women live with female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). We aimed to systematically review the evidence for physical health risks associated with FGM/C.
designWe searched 15 databases to identify studies (up to January 2012). Selection criteria were empirical studies reporting physical health outcomes from FGM/C, affecting females with any type of FGM/C, irrespective of ethnicity, nationality and age. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, applied eligibility criteria, assessed methodological study quality and extracted full-text data. To derive overall risk estimates, we combined data from included studies using the Mantel-Haenszel method for unadjusted dichotomous data and the generic inverse-variance method for adjusted data. Outcomes that were sufficiently similar across studies and reasonably resistant to biases were aggregated in meta-analyses. We applied the instrument Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the extent to which we have confidence in the effect estimates.
resultsOur search returned 5109 results, of which 185 studies (3.17 million women) satisfied the inclusion criteria. The risks of systematic and random errors were variable and we focused on key outcomes from the 57 studies with the best available evidence. The most common immediate complications were excessive bleeding, urine retention and genital tissue swelling. The most valid and statistically significant associations for the physical health sequelae of FGM/C were seen on urinary tract infections (unadjusted RR=3.01), bacterial vaginosis (adjusted OR (AOR)=1.68), dyspareunia (RR=1.53), prolonged labour (AOR=1.49), caesarean section (AOR=1.60), and difficult delivery (AOR=1.88).
conclusionsWhile the precise estimation of the frequency and risk of immediate, gynaecological, sexual and obstetric complications is not possible, the results weigh against the continuation of FGM/C and support the diagnosis and management of girls and women suffering the physical risks of FGM/C. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012003321.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.