Leah S. Crawford EMT, Nancy R. Downing PhD, RN, SANE-A, SANE-P, FAAN, Abimbola D. Famurewa CPS, Jenifer R. Markowitz ND, RN, WHNP-BC, SANE-A, DF-IAFN, Gang Han PhD
{"title":"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。","authors":"Leah S. Crawford EMT, Nancy R. Downing PhD, RN, SANE-A, SANE-P, FAAN, Abimbola D. Famurewa CPS, Jenifer R. Markowitz ND, RN, WHNP-BC, SANE-A, DF-IAFN, Gang Han PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<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 (<i>p</i> = 0.003). Study heterogeneity was 54% (<i>p</i> = 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":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"70 1","pages":"161-169"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11693518/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genital lacerations following sexual assault and consensual sexual intercourse: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Leah S. Crawford EMT, Nancy R. Downing PhD, RN, SANE-A, SANE-P, FAAN, Abimbola D. Famurewa CPS, Jenifer R. Markowitz ND, RN, WHNP-BC, SANE-A, DF-IAFN, Gang Han PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1556-4029.15666\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<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 (<i>p</i> = 0.003). Study heterogeneity was 54% (<i>p</i> = 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\":15743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"161-169\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11693518/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15666\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, LEGAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15666","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Genital lacerations following sexual assault and consensual sexual intercourse: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.