ArticleArchives of sexual behavior2024
Rethinking the Definition of Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting.
Article in Archives of sexual behavior, 2024. 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.
- Impact of female genital mutilation on sexual function and psychosocial wellbeing among Somali women: a cross-sectional study.BMC women's health · 2026Observational
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices for Care of Women and Girls With FGM/C - A Survey of Health Workers at Swiss University Hospitals.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Article
- Labiaplasty in Minors: Medicalizing Mutilation?Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
- Clinical, Ethical, and Legal Considerations Raised by Self-Reported Genital Mutilation Following Voluntary Cosmetic Labiaplasty.Archives of sexual behavior · 2025Article
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
Abstract
In 2015, the international community agreed to end Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) by 2030. However, the target is unlikely to be met as changes in practice, including medicalized female genital mutilation/cutting (mFGM/C), challenge abandonment strategies. This paper critically reviews the current World Health Organization (WHO) definition of mFGM/C to demonstrate that mFGM/C, as currently defined, lacks detail and clarity, and may serve as an obstacle to the collection of credible, reliable, and comparable data relevant to targeted FGM/C prevention policies and programs. The paper argues that it is necessary to initiate a discussion on the revision of the current WHO definition of mFGM/C, where different components (who-how-where-what) should be taken into account. This is argued by discussing different scenarios that compare the current WHO definition of mFGM/C with the actual practice of FGM/C on the ground. The cases discussed within these scenarios are based on existing published research and the research experience of the authors. The scenarios focus on countries where mFGM/C is prevalent among girls under 18 years, using data from Demographic Health Surveys and/or Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, and thus the focus is on the Global South. The paper places its arguments in relation to wider debates concerning female genital cosmetic surgery, male genital circumcision and consent. It calls for more research on these topics to ensure that definitions of FGM/C and mFGM/C reflect the real-world contexts and ensure that the human rights of girls and women are protected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38286965What 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.