↓ Skip to main content

Virginity testing: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 1,598)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
25 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
96 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Virginity testing: a systematic review
Published in
Reproductive Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12978-017-0319-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rose McKeon Olson, Claudia García-Moreno

Abstract

So-called virginity testing, also referred to as hymen, two-finger, or per vaginal examination, is the inspection of the female genitalia to assess if the examinee has had or has been habituated to sexual intercourse. This paper is the first systematic review of available evidence on the medical utility of virginity testing by hymen examination and its potential impacts on the examinee. Ten electronic databases and other sources for articles published in English were systematically searched from database inception until January 2017. Studies reporting on the medical utility or impact on the examinee of virginity testing were included. Evidence was summarized and assessed via a predesigned data abstraction form. Meta-analysis was not possible. Seventeen of 1269 identified studies were included. Summary measures could not be computed due to study heterogeneity. Included studies found that hymen examination does not accurately or reliably predict virginity status. In addition, included studies reported that virginity testing could cause physical, psychological, and social harms to the examinee. Despite the lack of evidence of medical utility and the potential harms, health professionals in multiple settings continue to practice virginity testing, including when assessing for sexual assault. health professionals must be better informed and medical and other textbooks updated to reflect current medical knowledge. Countries should review their policies and move towards a banning of virginity testing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 18%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Researcher 9 7%
Lecturer 7 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 41 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 16%
Social Sciences 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Arts and Humanities 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 44 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 337. 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 30 March 2024.
All research outputs
#99,842
of 25,791,495 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#8
of 1,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,225
of 328,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,791,495 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 328,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.