ArticleAJP reports2021
Congenital Perineal Groove Defect in Monozygotic Twin Infants: A Literature Review.
Article in AJP reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The development of the external genitals in female human embryos and foetuses. Part 2: Vaginal vestibule, anal canal, perineal raphe and perineal cutaneous muscles.Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- Characteristics and treatment of congenital perineal groove in male patients.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Perineal groove: Case report.Urology case reports · 2022Article
- A Rare Congenital Perineal Groove.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perineal groove is a rare benign congenital anomaly with lesion that resembles perforation of mid-perineum or perineal raphe area. Most reported cases of congenital perineal groove presented as an isolated defect in term or early-term singleton female infants. Thus far, there is no reported case of this anomaly in monozygotic twins. Embryo pathogenesis of this female predominance congenital defect remains controversial. Many clinicians are unfamiliar with this congenital anomaly. This congenital defect tends to get self-resolved at around 2 year of age. Nevertheless, the exposed nonepithelized mucous membrane can carry risk of local infection or irritation with the possibility of requiring early surgical correction. The defect can be infrequently associated with other ano-urogenital malformations that required immediate surgical intervention. Most isolated cases tend to be asymptomatic and self-healed with expectant management. Surgical correction may be considered if not healed after 2 years of age. Early diagnosis at birth is important to avoid misdiagnoses at later age for trauma, dermatitis, sexual abuse, and risk of unnecessary aggressive intervention. Early parental counseling for providing good hygiene and close follow-up is important to prevent infection or inflammation. Presentation of this anomaly in both monozygotic twins may support the hypothesis of potential disruption during embryo morphogenesis stages.
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.