An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Obstetric Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting
In our recent systematic review in Obstetrics and Gynecology International of the association between FGM/C and obstetric harm we concluded that FGM/C significantly increases the risk of delivery complications. The findings were based on unadjusted effect estimates from both prospective and retrospe...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/542859 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832545420641828864 |
|---|---|
| author | R. C. Berg J. Odgaard-Jensen A. Fretheim V. Underland G. Vist |
| author_facet | R. C. Berg J. Odgaard-Jensen A. Fretheim V. Underland G. Vist |
| author_sort | R. C. Berg |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In our recent systematic review in Obstetrics and Gynecology International of the association between FGM/C and obstetric harm we concluded that FGM/C significantly increases the risk of delivery complications. The findings were based on unadjusted effect estimates from both prospective and retrospective studies. To accommodate requests by critics, we aimed to validate these results through additional analyses based on adjusted estimates from prospective studies. We judged that 7 of the 28 studies included in our original systematic review were prospective. Statistical adjustments for measured confounding factors were made in eight studies, including three prospective studies. The adjusted confounders differed across studies in number and type. Results from meta-analyses based on adjusted estimates, with or without data from retrospective studies, consistently pointed in the same direction as our earlier findings. There were only small differences in the sizes or the level of statistical significance. Using GRADE, we assessed that our confidence in the effect estimates was very low or low for all outcomes. The adjusted estimates generally show similar obstetric harms from FGM/C as unadjusted estimates do. Thus, the current analyses confirm the findings from our previous systematic review. There are sufficient grounds to conclude that FGM/C, with respect to obstetric circumstances, involves harm. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-2160d0a30aa14f48899e9280166d6778 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-9589 1687-9597 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| spelling | doaj-art-2160d0a30aa14f48899e9280166d67782025-02-03T07:25:50ZengWileyObstetrics and Gynecology International1687-95891687-95972014-01-01201410.1155/2014/542859542859An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Obstetric Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/CuttingR. C. Berg0J. Odgaard-Jensen1A. Fretheim2V. Underland3G. Vist4The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St.Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, NorwayThe Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St.Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, NorwayThe Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St.Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, NorwayThe Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St.Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, NorwayThe Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, P.O. Box 7004, St.Olavs Plass, 0130 Oslo, NorwayIn our recent systematic review in Obstetrics and Gynecology International of the association between FGM/C and obstetric harm we concluded that FGM/C significantly increases the risk of delivery complications. The findings were based on unadjusted effect estimates from both prospective and retrospective studies. To accommodate requests by critics, we aimed to validate these results through additional analyses based on adjusted estimates from prospective studies. We judged that 7 of the 28 studies included in our original systematic review were prospective. Statistical adjustments for measured confounding factors were made in eight studies, including three prospective studies. The adjusted confounders differed across studies in number and type. Results from meta-analyses based on adjusted estimates, with or without data from retrospective studies, consistently pointed in the same direction as our earlier findings. There were only small differences in the sizes or the level of statistical significance. Using GRADE, we assessed that our confidence in the effect estimates was very low or low for all outcomes. The adjusted estimates generally show similar obstetric harms from FGM/C as unadjusted estimates do. Thus, the current analyses confirm the findings from our previous systematic review. There are sufficient grounds to conclude that FGM/C, with respect to obstetric circumstances, involves harm.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/542859 |
| spellingShingle | R. C. Berg J. Odgaard-Jensen A. Fretheim V. Underland G. Vist An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Obstetric Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| title | An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Obstetric Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting |
| title_full | An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Obstetric Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting |
| title_fullStr | An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Obstetric Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting |
| title_full_unstemmed | An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Obstetric Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting |
| title_short | An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Obstetric Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting |
| title_sort | updated systematic review and meta analysis of the obstetric consequences of female genital mutilation cutting |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/542859 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rcberg anupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT jodgaardjensen anupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT afretheim anupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT vunderland anupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT gvist anupdatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT rcberg updatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT jodgaardjensen updatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT afretheim updatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT vunderland updatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting AT gvist updatedsystematicreviewandmetaanalysisoftheobstetricconsequencesoffemalegenitalmutilationcutting |