ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
Patterns of female genital-anal injury following consensual and non-consensual intercourse: a systematic review with exploratory likelihood ratio analysis.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to compare female genital-anal injury patterns following sexual assault (SA) and consensual sexual intercourse (SI), and to explore the feasibility of a likelihood ratio (LR) framework for location-specific injury interpretation. Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and PubMed databases were searched following PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting genital-anal injury prevalence in females following SI and/or SA were included. Location-specific injury probabilities were calculated for 15 anatomical sites, and exploratory LR values were derived with approximate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and a sensitivity analysis for zero-cell handling. Eight studies comprising 4,350 females were included (SA: n = 3,332; SI: n = 1,018). Overall injury prevalence was significantly higher following SA (25.4%; 95% CI: 23.9-26.9%) compared to SI (2.5%; 95% CI: 1.7-3.7%). The posterior fourchette demonstrated the highest injury probability in both groups (SA: 8.0%; SI: 1.0%). Exploratory LR values ranged from 1.0 to 13.8, with the labia (LR = 13.8; 95% CI: 5.7-33.1), vagina (LR = 12.3; 95% CI: 4.6-32.7), and hymen (LR = 12.0; 95% CI: 5.0-28.8) showing the strongest discriminatory potential. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that LR values for sites with zero SI injuries were highly sensitive to the continuity correction applied, ranging over an order of magnitude. While location-specific injury data demonstrate theoretical feasibility for LR-based forensic assessment, substantial methodological heterogeneity across studies and wide confidence intervals limit current applicability. Purpose-built national injury databases with standardised examination protocols are essential before LR approaches can be validated for forensic practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42642658What 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.