SynthesisJournal of forensic sciences2025
Genital lacerations following sexual assault and consensual sexual intercourse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of forensic sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Genital lacerations following sexual assault and consensual sexual intercourse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of forensic sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Patterns of female genital-anal injury following consensual and non-consensual intercourse: a systematic review with exploratory likelihood ratio analysis.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Forensic pathologic investigation of the female genital organs by complete pelvic exenteration: a step-by-step autopsy approach.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Medical Findings in 2975 Examinations for Child Sexual Abuse: A Retrospective Review.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The identification of genital injuries during a medical-forensic examination may impact the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare prevalence of genital lacerations (or tears) in persons reporting consensual versus non-consensual vaginal penetration. We hypothesized there would be greater prevalence of genital injuries in the non-consensual group. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and gray literature for relevant observational case-control studies. Relative risk (RR) ratios using Mantel-Haenszel method were calculated to compare prevalence of genital lacerations between patients reporting consensual versus non-consensual penetration. Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tested significance and Cochran's Q determined between-study heterogeneity. In all studies, genital injuries were observed in both groups. The overall RR of 1.26 indicated a 26% greater risk of genital lacerations in the non-consensual group compared to the consensual group (p = 0.003). Study heterogeneity was 54% (p = 0.05). Findings suggest a greater likelihood of observing genital lacerations in persons reporting non-consensual vaginal penetration. High heterogeneity reflects variations between studies regarding provider education and training, visualization techniques, patient characteristics, time between assault and examination, and documentation practices. A major limitation is the lack of observer blinding creating potential bias. Findings support the need to standardize genital visualization techniques and documentation in sexual assault medical forensic examinations. Healthcare providers conducting medical forensic examinations must understand the limitations of studies comparing non-consensual and consensual injury findings if asked to provide information or testimony on this topic.
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.