Genital lacerations following sexual assault and consensual sexual intercourse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Leah S Crawford, Nancy R Downing, Abimbola D Famurewa, Jenifer R Markowitz, Gang Han
{"title":"Genital lacerations following sexual assault and consensual sexual intercourse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Leah S Crawford, Nancy R Downing, Abimbola D Famurewa, Jenifer R Markowitz, Gang Han","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The identification of genital injuries during a medical-forensic examination may impact the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare prevalence of genital lacerations (or tears) in persons reporting consensual versus non-consensual vaginal penetration. We hypothesized there would be greater prevalence of genital injuries in the non-consensual group. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and gray literature for relevant observational case-control studies. Relative risk (RR) ratios using Mantel-Haenszel method were calculated to compare prevalence of genital lacerations between patients reporting consensual versus non-consensual penetration. Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tested significance and Cochran's Q determined between-study heterogeneity. In all studies, genital injuries were observed in both groups. The overall RR of 1.26 indicated a 26% greater risk of genital lacerations in the non-consensual group compared to the consensual group (p = 0.003). Study heterogeneity was 54% (p = 0.05). Findings suggest a greater likelihood of observing genital lacerations in persons reporting non-consensual vaginal penetration. High heterogeneity reflects variations between studies regarding provider education and training, visualization techniques, patient characteristics, time between assault and examination, and documentation practices. A major limitation is the lack of observer blinding creating potential bias. Findings support the need to standardize genital visualization techniques and documentation in sexual assault medical forensic examinations. Healthcare providers conducting medical forensic examinations must understand the limitations of studies comparing non-consensual and consensual injury findings if asked to provide information or testimony on this topic.</p>","PeriodicalId":94080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.15666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The identification of genital injuries during a medical-forensic examination may impact the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare prevalence of genital lacerations (or tears) in persons reporting consensual versus non-consensual vaginal penetration. We hypothesized there would be greater prevalence of genital injuries in the non-consensual group. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and gray literature for relevant observational case-control studies. Relative risk (RR) ratios using Mantel-Haenszel method were calculated to compare prevalence of genital lacerations between patients reporting consensual versus non-consensual penetration. Mantel-Haenszel chi-square tested significance and Cochran's Q determined between-study heterogeneity. In all studies, genital injuries were observed in both groups. The overall RR of 1.26 indicated a 26% greater risk of genital lacerations in the non-consensual group compared to the consensual group (p = 0.003). Study heterogeneity was 54% (p = 0.05). Findings suggest a greater likelihood of observing genital lacerations in persons reporting non-consensual vaginal penetration. High heterogeneity reflects variations between studies regarding provider education and training, visualization techniques, patient characteristics, time between assault and examination, and documentation practices. A major limitation is the lack of observer blinding creating potential bias. Findings support the need to standardize genital visualization techniques and documentation in sexual assault medical forensic examinations. Healthcare providers conducting medical forensic examinations must understand the limitations of studies comparing non-consensual and consensual injury findings if asked to provide information or testimony on this topic.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
性侵犯和自愿性交后的生殖器撕裂伤:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
在法医检查过程中识别生殖器损伤可能会影响性侵犯的调查和起诉。这项荟萃分析的目的是比较在自愿与非自愿阴道插入报告中生殖器裂伤(或撕裂)的发生率。我们假设未经双方同意的人群中生殖器损伤的发生率更高。我们在 PubMed、CINAHL、Web of Science 和灰色文献中搜索了相关的观察性病例对照研究。采用 Mantel-Haenszel 法计算相对风险 (RR) 比率,以比较报告双方同意插入与未经双方同意插入的患者之间生殖器撕裂伤的发生率。Mantel-Haenszel chi-square 检验显著性,Cochran's Q 检验研究间的异质性。在所有研究中,两组均观察到生殖器损伤。总RR为1.26,表明与双方同意组相比,非双方同意组发生生殖器撕裂伤的风险高出26%(P = 0.003)。研究异质性为 54%(p = 0.05)。研究结果表明,在报告未经同意插入阴道的人群中,观察到生殖器撕裂伤的可能性更大。高度异质性反映了不同研究在提供者的教育和培训、可视化技术、患者特征、侵犯与检查之间的时间以及记录方法等方面存在差异。研究的一个主要局限是缺乏观察者盲法,这可能会造成偏差。研究结果支持在性侵犯医学法医检查中规范生殖器可视化技术和记录的必要性。如果被要求提供相关信息或证词,进行医学法医检查的医疗服务提供者必须了解比较非自愿和自愿伤害结果的研究的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Serial killer and necrophilia: Report of twenty-five years of treatment and management in a rare case. Genital lacerations following sexual assault and consensual sexual intercourse: A systematic review and meta-analysis. A statistical analysis for deepfake videos forgery traces recognition followed by a fine-tuned InceptionResNetV2 detection technique. Significance of image brightness levels for PRNU camera identification. A Bayesian approach to Suchey-Brooks age estimation from the pubic symphysis using modern American samples.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1