↓ Skip to main content

Are obstetric outcomes affected by female genital mutilation?

Overview of attention for article published in International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Are obstetric outcomes affected by female genital mutilation?
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00192-017-3466-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aswini A Balachandran, Swapna Duvalla, Abdul H Sultan, Ranee Thakar

Abstract

Female genital mutilation (FGM) has been associated with adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes, such as postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), perineal trauma, genital fistulae, obstructed labour and stillbirth. The prevalence of FGM has increased in the UK over the last decade. There are currently no studies available that have explored the obstetric impact of FGM in the UK. The aim of our study was to investigate the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of women with FGM when compared with the general population. We conducted a retrospective case-control study of consecutive pregnant women with FGM over a 5-year period between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013. Each woman with FGM was matched for age, ethnicity, parity and gestation with subsequent patients without FGM (control cohort) over the same 5-year period. Outcomes assessed were mode of delivery, duration of labour, estimated blood loss, analgaesia, perineal trauma and foetal outcomes. A total of 242 eligible women (121 FGM, 121 control) were identified for the study. There was a significant increase in the use of episiotomy in the FGM group (p = 0.009) and a significant increase in minor PPH in the control group during caesarean sections (p = 0.0001). There were no differences in all other obstetric and neonatal parameters. In our unit, FGM was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse obstetric and foetal morbidity or mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 38 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 44 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2020.
All research outputs
#8,612,385
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#869
of 2,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,886
of 324,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#15
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.