Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32385653›Full record

SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2020

Cosmetic gynecology-a systematic review and call for standardized outcome measures.

Bobby Garcia, Stacey Scheib, Barry Hallner, Nia Thompson, Julie Schiavo, Lisa Peacock

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Labiaplasty in Minors: Medicalizing Mutilation?Archives of sexual behavior · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Outcomes of labiaplasty in women with labial hypertrophy.International urogynecology journal · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bobby GarciaDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 5th Floor Department of OB/GYN, 1542 Tulane Ave, New Orleans, LA, 70124, USA. garcia.bobby@gmail.com.
Stacey ScheibDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Barry HallnerDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 5th Floor Department of OB/GYN, 1542 Tulane Ave, New Orleans, LA, 70124, USA.
Nia ThompsonDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 5th Floor Department of OB/GYN, 1542 Tulane Ave, New Orleans, LA, 70124, USA.
Julie SchiavoDepartment of Libraries, New Orleans School of Dentistry, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Lisa PeacockDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, 5th Floor Department of OB/GYN, 1542 Tulane Ave, New Orleans, LA, 70124, USA.
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · USLouisiana State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCosmetic gynecology, a field which has garnered substantial attention over recent years, lacks a universally accepted nomenclature. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate techniques, outcome measures reported, and adverse events in patients undergoing cosmetic gynecology procedures and offer recommendations to improve reporting metrics.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases from inception to April 2019. The search was based on 51 unique cosmetic gynecology keywords such as: "labiaplasty," "vaginal rejuvenation," and "liposuction mons pubis." All English full-text prospective and retrospective observational and interventional studies with at least five subjects that describe a cosmetic gynecology procedure were included. Only full-text articles were included. This protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42019131860).

resultsA total of 1837 articles were identified from the search strategy with 42 included in the quantitative synthesis. Procedures described included: labia minora reduction with or without clitoral hood reduction, labia majora augmentation, surgical vaginal caliber reduction, mons pubis reduction/suspension, and energy-based therapy for vaginal laxity or vulvar laxity. Efficacy and satisfaction metrics were highly variable ranging from validated questionnaires to no outcome subjectively or objectively quantified. Complication rates varied by procedure but were generally low and ranged between Clavien-Dindo grades I-III.

conclusionsAlthough there is a breadth of literature on cosmetic gynecology surgical techniques and short-term complication rates, the terminology and outcome measures utilized are heterogeneous. To address this, standardized terminology along with uniform cosmetic and functional endpoints must be developed.

Indexed as

GynecologyPlastic Surgery ProceduresFemaleHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesVulvaCosmetic gynecologyLabia majora augmentationLabiaplastyVaginal laxityVaginoplasty

Identifiers

PMID32385653
OpenAlexW3022798297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.