ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Perspectives on conducting "sex-normalising" intersex surgeries conducted in infancy: A systematic review.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Children with intersex variations continue to be subject to elective, irreversible, "sex-normalising" surgical interventions, despite multiple human rights and legislative bodies calling for their prohibition. Our systematic review aims to understand how medical literature reports rationales for "sex-normalising" surgical interventions conducted in childhood, and how they are contextualised within the medical and social controversy surrounding such interventions. PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for English language, peer-reviewed articles reporting primary data on elective, genital, "sex-normalising" surgical interventions conducted on individuals <10 years, published 01/07/2006-30/06/2023 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023460871). Data on outcomes reported, rationale for the conduct and timing of interventions and acknowledgement of controversy were extracted. Narrative synthesis described rationales and controversy. Risk of bias was assessed using Johanna Briggs Institute Tools. 11,042 records were retrieved, with 71 articles included for analysis. One of the most common outcomes collected in included literature were cosmetic outcomes, primarily reported by surgeons or parents. 62.0% of studies reported no rationale for intervention timing, 39.4% reported no rationale for conduct and 52.1% acknowledged no controversy in intervention conduct. Rationales included parental desire for intervention, anatomical/functional/cosmetic reasons, and a perceived goal of aligning with sex assigned by surgical teams or parents. Controversies addressed included concerns about the quality of interventions, the ethics of intervention conduct and gendered and social considerations. "Sex-normalising" interventions are conducted based largely on rationales that were not adequately supported by evidence, a desire from parents and surgeons to match genital cosmesis typically ascribed to male and female bodies, and a parental desire for intervention conduct. Legislating and medical regulatory bodies should advocate for ending the conduct of irreversible, elective, "sex-normalising" interventions conducted without the full, free and informed consent of the person concerned, to promote and protect the highest attainable standard of health for people with intersex variations.
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.