ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2021
Clinical and ethical perspectives of medical professionals towards female genital cosmetic procedures
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Female genital cosmetic procedures from the perspective of health practitioners: a systematic review of knowledge, attitude and practice studies.BMC women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Attitude and knowledge of healthcare providers towards female genital cosmetic surgery: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Comparative Investigation of Genital Self-image and Sexual Function in Women with and Without a History of Female Genital Cosmetic Procedures: A Cross-sectional Study.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2024Article
- Aesthetic Gynaecology: What Women Want?Cureus · 2023Review
- Article
- Functional need or personal choice: Medical professionals' understanding and framing of performing female genital cosmetic procedures.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the attitudes of medical students and professionals towards female genital cosmetic procedures (FGCPs) in terms of medical justification, applicability in practical life, ethical concerns, patient autonomy, and the clinical/social/psychological benefits-harms of these procedures. Materials and Methods: A semi-structured questionnaire providing information about the attitudes of medical students and specialists (n=623) towards FGCPs including G-spot amplification, clitoral hood reduction, vaginoplasty, labia majora augmentation/reduction, labia minora augmentation/reduction, hymenoplasty, laser procedures, vulvar/perianal bleaching, and liposculpture, was completed by a target population and evaluated statistically. Results: Participants stated that FGCPs could be performed only upon patient request and there could rarely be a medical indication for their performance (p<0.05). Nearly half (44.5%) of the participants regarded hymenoplasty as controversial in terms of ethical issues, and 44.6% of participants do so for G-spot amplification. Over half (54.5%) of the participants agreed on the positive effect of FGCPs on improving the quality of life, 55.4% on improving self-esteem, and 54.1% on improving sexual functions of women. About half (49.3%) of respondents thought that the advertising and encouragement of FGCPs should be forbidden and 47% were indecisive about whether FGCPs constituted genital mutilation. Conclusion: The majority of the participants declared that FGCPs could be performed only upon patient request and improve self-esteem, quality of life, and sexual functions. The most controversial procedures in terms of ethics were hymenoplasty and G-spot amplification. Detailed guidelines for the protection of both patients and physicians are needed because the recommendations on FGCPs are insufficient to define the boundaries of medical justification, genital mutilation, advertising, and ethical concerns.
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.