Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27678547›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Female genital cosmetic surgery: a cross-sectional survey exploring knowledge, attitude and practice of general practitioners.

M Simonis, R Manocha, J J Ong

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cosmetic labiaplasty on minors: a review of current trends and evidence.International journal of impotence research · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

3 authors.

M SimonisDepartment of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Expert Committee Quality Care, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
R ManochaSydney Medical School Northern, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Academic Department of Psychiatry, Kolling Institute, Northern Sydney Local Health District, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.
J J OngFaculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore general practitioner's (GP) knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding female genital cosmetic surgery (FGCS) in Australia.

designCross-sectional survey.

settingAustralia. SAMPLE: GPs who attended a women's health seminar and GPs who subscribed to a non-governmental, national health professional organisation database that provides education to primary care professionals.

methodA national online survey of GPs was conducted for the 10-week period, starting 1 week prior and 2 months after a Women's Health seminar was held in Perth on 8 August 2015. 31 questions prompted GPs' knowledge, attitudes and practice in managing patients asking about FGCS.

resultsThe survey was fully completed by 443 GPs; 54% had seen patients requesting FGCS. Overall, 75% (95% CI 71% to 79%) of GPs rated their knowledge of FGCS as inadequate and 97% (95% CI 94% to 99%) had been asked by women of all ages about genital normality. Of those who had seen patients requesting FGCS, nearly half (44%, 95% CI 38% to 51%) reported they had insufficient knowledge of risks of FGCS procedures and 35% (95% CI 29% to 41%) reported seeing females younger than 18 years of age requesting FGCS. Just over half (56%, 95% CI 51% to 60%) of the GPs felt that women should be counselled before making a referral for FGCS. More than half the GPs suspected psychological disturbances in their patients requesting FGCS such as depression, anxiety, relationship difficulties and body dysmorphic disorder.

conclusionsGPs see women of all ages presenting with genital anatomy concerns and in those who request FGCS, GPs often suspected a range of mental health difficulties. GPs require greater education to support their patients who request FGCS.

Indexed as

Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery LabiaplastyGeneral Practitionergenital anatomyGPLabiaplastyWomen's health

Identifiers

PMID27678547
PMCPMC5051499

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.