,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
G. Heinrichs reporting on new meta-analysis of sexual function following FGM/C. Attempted meta-regression 2 control 4 potential confounding contextual/demographic variables but there was not enough data: those factors not routinely/robustly collected in studies on sexual function
Question: is there a "dose response" w. more severe forms of FGC associated w. greater dysfunction than less severe forms? Control group score about 26 (near sexual dysfunction line on FSFI!); in Type I, score about 25, not far different; but Types II, III trend to lower scores.
Limitations: most data evidence grade is very low to moderate; not all studies had control groups; 5/17 studies did not use exam confirmation of FGM type, demographic factors not routinely collected to allow for controlling of potential confounds.
Audience member: we must remember that FGC comes in many different types, with different tools, different levels of skill, different sterilization standards, etc., and so we have to separate potential sources of trauma from notion that FGC is a 'standardized surgical procedure'
Audience member: the WHO typology is itself a problem: in Type III for example, this sometimes involves cutting of external clitoris, sometimes not (clitoris intact). By grouping these together & running data analysis on WHO typology, we get uninterpretable outcomes.
Problem: measures of sexual function do not capture whole range of subjective sexual experience (common problem in studies of sexual outcomes following cutting as I argue here onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100…); many women w. Type III in clinical practice show "normal sexual function"
