ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
The Relation Between Female Genital Perception and Genital Measurements: Does Size Matter?
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: The Relation Between Female Genital Perception and Genital Measurements: Does Size Matter?International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Response to Letter to the Editor: The Relation Between Female Genital Perception and Genital Measurements: Does Size Matter.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Labia Minora Anatomy in Premenopausal Women: Toward Better Labiaplasty Decisions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to measure the widths of labia minora and clitoral hood lengths of women not seeking labiaplasty and to assess their perceptions of their genitals using Female Genital Self Image Scale (FGSIS) scores to discuss whether size affects women's perceptions of their genitalia and also contribute to the literature on genital anatomy variation.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in the gynecology clinic of a tertiary hospital, between February 2024 and July 2024, and included 200 women aged between 18 and 45 not requesting labiaplasty. The clitoral hood and bilateral labia minora width dimensions of every woman were measured and an FGSIS questionnaire was completed. An investigation was conducted as to whether correlations between women's FGSIS scores and clitoral-hood lengths, labia-minora width dimensions and other variables could be observed.
resultsIn this study, the right labia minora width mean was 18.66 ± 9.64 mm, the left labia minora width mean was measured as 19.07 ± 9.40 mm and the clitoral hood mean was 17.43 ± 7.16 mm. When the patients' age, body mass index, parity, education level, frequency of coitus, and clitoral hood and labia minora measurements were compared with the FGSIS scores, no statistically significant correlations were found among them (p > 0.05).
conclusionOur study conducted with 200 women not seeking genital surgery showed that there is a wide range of genital anatomical variation, and there is no connection between labia minora width or clitoral hood length and female genital perception according to FGSIS scores. When evaluating patients' perception of their genitalia, it is advisable to avoid setting specific anatomical measurement limits and offering directive assessments based on those results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41131354What 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.