Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40511400›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2025

Self-report and proxy reports in survey data on female genital mutilation, Senegal.

Kathrin Weny, Romesh Silva, Stefanie J Klug

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kathrin WenyChair of Epidemiology, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring, Munich80992, Germany.
Romesh SilvaUnited Nations Population Fund, New York, United States of America.
Stefanie J KlugChair of Epidemiology, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring, Munich80992, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To assess the quality and consistency of reported age patterns of female genital mutilation in self- and proxy-reported survey data. Methods: We used 10 Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) from 2005 to 2023 in Senegal. These surveys contained information on female genital mutilation status and age at experiencing this practice for women who reported data on themselves and daughters for whom data were reported by their mothers. We assessed data quality by completeness of information on age at female genital mutilation in a logistic regression analysis. We compared the occurrence of age heaping across DHS and individual survey characteristics such as education, age cohort and completeness of date of birth reporting. We estimated the median age at female genital mutilation of daughters and women to assess the consequences of differences in data quality for the interpretation of survey data on this practice. Findings: Self-reported data were more prone to incomplete reporting of age at female genital mutilation and age heaping than proxy-reported data. These findings held true across individual survey characteristics and different DHS. The estimates for median age at female genital mutilation were susceptible to differences in data quality of age at female genital mutilation of daughters and women. Conclusion: Self-reported data on age at female genital mutilation are of lower quality than proxy-reported data. These differences potentially distort trend estimates of age at female genital mutilation. Caution is needed when combining self- and proxy-reported survey data on female genital mutilation.

Indexed as

Circumcision, FemaleProxySelf ReportAdolescentAdultAge FactorsChildFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMiddle AgedSenegalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40511400
PMCPMC12161157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.