ArticleBMJ open2019
Survey on female genital mutilation/cutting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors associated with female genital mutilation: a systematic review and synthesis of national, regional and community-based studies.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- A narrative review on the practice of genital mutilation among Arab adolescent females and a case report on a large clitoral epidermal inclusion cyst.International journal of surgery case reports · 2025Article
- Prevalence and drivers of female genital mutilation/cutting in three coastal governorates in Yemen.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies.International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Female Genital Mutilation, Sexual Quality of Life and Marital Relationship: A Case-Control Study From Iran.Journal of family & reproductive health · 2022Article
- Review
- Female Genital Self-Image in Women With and Without Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Sexual medicine · 2020Article
- Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting as Grounds for Asylum Requests in the US: An Analysis of More than 100 Cases.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2020Article
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
objectivesThe objective of this study was to determine whether female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) exists in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingKing Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
participantsBetween December 2016 and August 2017, women attending the obstetrics and gynaecology clinics were asked to participate in a cross-sectional survey. This included questions on demographics, FGM/C status and type and attitudes towards the practice.
resultsIn a convenience sample of 963 women aged 18 to 75 years, 175 (18.2%) had undergone FGM/C. Compared with women without FGM/C, women with FGM/C were older, married, non-Saudi and had a lower monthly income. Thirty-seven (21.1%) women had had FGM/C with some cutting of body parts (type I or II), 11 (6.3%) with suturing (type III), 46 (26.3%) with no cutting of body parts (type IV) and 81 (46.3%) did not know their type of FGM/C. There was also a significant association between nationality and age at which FGM/C was performed, with Saudi women undergoing the procedure earlier than Egyptian, Somali, Yemeni and Sudanese women.
conclusionsFGM/C is prevalent in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, among immigrant women from other countries, and it is practised among Saudi women. Further research is needed to determine its prevalence.
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.