ArticleAmerican journal of biological anthropology2026
Exploring Pelvic Changes: Do Pregnancy and Birth Leave Scars?
Article in American journal of biological anthropology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSelected pelvic features, formerly "parturition scars," have long been interpreted as osteological indicators of pregnancy and childbirth, presumably caused by biomechanical stresses. Yet, most evidence derives from archaeological collections lacking detailed documented reproductive histories. This study examined whether parity is associated with classic pelvic features in a clinical sample of women with known reproductive histories and, for comparison, in men. In addition, we evaluated urinary incontinence as a functional outcome related to reproductive histories. MATERIALS AND
methodsPelvic CT scans from 84 individuals (39 parous women, 20 nulliparous women, 25 men) were assessed for five pelvic features: dorsal pubic pitting, extended pubic tubercle, preauricular sulcus, sacral preauricular extension, sacral preauricular notch. Reproductive history and urinary incontinence were recorded. Group differences were analyzed using nonparametric and χ
resultsSkeletal pelvic features were similarly frequent in parous and nulliparous women. The preauricular sulcus was present in approximately half of all women and absent in men, indicating a sex-associated pattern rather than an association with parity. No other individual pelvic feature showed consistent differences by parity, only by sex. Combinations of pelvic features were rare. Urinary incontinence was more prevalent among parous women; parity remained associated with incontinence after age adjustment. Incontinent women had a slightly higher number of pelvic features, on average, but this association was not statistically significant.
conclusionClassic skeletal pelvic features lack specificity for pregnancy or childbirth and cannot reliably predict parity.
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.