ArticlePloS one2021
The benefits and disappointments following clitoral reconstruction after female genital cutting: A qualitative interview study from Sweden.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Female genital mutilation/cutting burden and perceptions among asylum-seeking women in Berlin, Germany: A cross-sectional study.Journal of migration and health · 2026Article
- Sensitivity after Clitoral Reconstruction in Patients with Female Genital Mutilation.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Examining the key features of specialist health service provision for women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in the Global North: a scoping review.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
- Clitoral reconstruction: challenges and new directions.International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Changing gender norms around female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C): a key role for social work in the Global North.Frontiers in sociology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Female genital cutting or mutilation refers to the cutting of girls' external genitalia. Due to migration from contexts where female genital cutting is common, it is estimated that around 38 000 cut women and girls live in Sweden. Clitoral reconstruction, a relatively new form of surgical healthcare offered to women with female genital cutting, was established in Sweden in 2014. This surgery aims at restoring clitoral function and anatomy, but there is yet a dearth of evidence demonstrating the effects of the surgery. The aim of this study was to explore how women undergoing clitoral reconstruction in Sweden between 2016 and 2019 experienced the surgical process and its aftereffects from a physical, sexual and psychosocial perspective. Eighteen women who had undergone clitoral reconstruction at a university hospital in Sweden agreed to participate in the study. The women were interviewed using semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. The results, based on self-categorization and labelling theory, demonstrated both benefits and disappointments following the surgery. Several women reported positive outcomes in terms of sexual, psychosocial and aesthetic terms. They experienced reduced genital pain, improvements in their sex lives, and a sense of feeling more empowered and at ease in their bodies. Yet, some women reported aesthetic, functional and process-related disappointment related to clitoral reconstruction. Nonetheless, the women expressed gratitude for the possibility of undergoing the surgery. In conclusion, the women reported that they experienced physical, sexual and psychosocial benefits of the surgery.
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.