2 Wade explains that Western efforts to end FGM/C since the early 1970s has relied primarily on two frames that have influenced the discourse of FGM/C and, in turn, the ideological contestation over the practice.3 In addition to the women’s right frame, a dominant frame has been that the practice http://www.selleckchem.com/products/BIBF1120.html involves physical and mental harm. Figure 1 Illustration of unaltered external female genitalia and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) types I–III. From top left: unaltered external female genitalia, type I (clitoridectomy), type II (excision) and type III (infibulation). Indeed, for close

to a century, observational studies, supported by biological theories, have suggested a negative association between FGM/C and various health outcomes. Such studies have been summarised in a handful of reviews. Epidemiologist and medical anthropologist Obermeyer first reviewed and critiqued the available literature on FGM/C until 1996, and next summarised the subsequent literature from 1997 to 2002.4 5 Another early review examined primary data on health complications after FGM/C with particular

emphasis on sequelae in childbirth.6 Recently, Iavazzo et al’s7 review explored the clinical evidence for an association between FGM/C and infections. The first systematic review in this field—addressing the social, psychological and sexual consequences of FGM/C—critically

reviewed and extracted data and analysed 17 comparative studies.8 9 While much of this research suggests a harmful effect of FGM/C on women’s health, the findings from observational studies and non-systematic reviews are equivocal. Additionally, some commentators have questioned the evidence for many of the claimed short-term and long-term medical consequences of FGM/C, such as quality of sex life, obstetric complications and infections.10 We aimed to systematically review the evidence for the range of physical health risks associated with FGM/C by summarising the findings from three technical systematic Entinostat review reports detailing the association.11–13 Methods We conducted a systematic review of the physical health risks and consequences of female genital modification in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and meta-Analyses) guidelines,14 15 using a predetermined protocol (PROSPERO, number CRD42012001915). The full details of the systematic review including the search strategies, risk of bias assessment and analysis are found in three technical reports.11–13 Search strategy The search strategy was developed and undertaken by an experienced search specialist.