Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25416059›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2014

Effects of female genital cutting on physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rigmor C Berg, Vigdis Underland, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Atle Fretheim, Gunn E Vist

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. "Frontiers in global women's health · 2026
    Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Rigmor C BergNorwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9991-4835
Vigdis UnderlandNorwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.
Jan Odgaard-JensenNorwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.
Atle FretheimNorwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.
Gunn E VistNorwegian Knowledge Center for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CausalityCircumcision, FemaleFemaleFemale Urogenital DiseasesHumansInternationalityObstetric Labor ComplicationsPregnancyRiskcircumcisionconsequencesfemalefemale genital cuttinghealthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID25416059
PMCPMC4244458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.