Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-mm7gn Total loading time: 3.269 Render date: 2022-08-08T01:38:07.245Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Section 11 - Public Health Issues in Gynaecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2021

Tahir Mahmood
Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
Charles Savona-Ventura
University of Malta, Malta
Ioannis Messinis
University of Thessaly, Greece
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, UK
Get access


Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Scally, G, Donaldson, LJ. The NHS’s 50 anniversary: clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England. BMJ 1998;317:6165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, C. What is clinical governance? BMJ 2005;330:s254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NHS Executive. Promoting Clinical Effectiveness: A Framework for Action in and through the NHS. Leeds: Department of Health, 1996.Google Scholar
NHS, NICE, Commission for Health Improvement, Royal College of Nursing, University of Leicester. Principles for Best Practice in Clinical Audit. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Smith, R. Audit and research. BMJ 1992;305:905906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Obtaining valid consent. Clinical Governance Advice Paper No. 5. October 2013.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Improving patient safety: risk management for maternity and gynaecology. Clinical Governance Advice No. 2. September 2009.Google Scholar
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Effectiveness of continuing medical education. Evidence Report No. 149. January 2007.Google Scholar
General Chiropractic Council, General Dental Council, General Medical Council, et al. The professional duty of candour. 2014.Google Scholar
General Medical Council. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. 2008. Available at: Scholar
Nursing and Midwifery Council. The Code: professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. 2013. Available at: Scholar
General Medical Council. Good medical practice. 2013. Available at: Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Presenting information on risk. Clinical Governance Advice No. 7. 2008.Google Scholar
Bearak, J, Popinchalk, A, Alkema, L, Sedgh, G. Global, regional, and subregional trends in unintended pregnancy and its outcomes from 1990 to 2014: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet Glob Health 2018;6:e380e389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, G, Smith, SC, Wellings, K. Conceptualisation, development, and evaluation of a measure of unplanned pregnancy. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:426433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakha, F, Glasier, A. Unintended pregnancy and use of emergency contraception among a large cohort of women attending for antenatal care or abortion in Scotland. Lancet 2006;368:17821787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poston, L, Barker, M, Hutchinson, J, et al. Before the beginning: nutrition and lifestyle in the preconception period and its importance for future health. Lancet 2018;391:18301841.Google Scholar
Colbourn, T, Dombrowski, SU, Fall, CHD, et al. Intervention strategies to improve nutrition and health behaviours before conception. Lancet 2018;391:18531864.Google Scholar
Dibaba, Y, Fantahun, M, Hindin, MJ. The effects of pregnancy intention on the use of antenatal care services: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Health 2013;10:50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohllajee, AP, Curtis, KM, Morrow, B, Marchbanks, PA. Pregnancy intention and its relationship to birth and maternal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:678686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abajobir, A, Maravilla, J, Alati, R, Najman, J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between unintended pregnancy and perinatal depression. J Affect Disord 2016;192:5663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, GC, Pell, JP, Dobbie, R. Interpregnancy interval and risk of preterm birth and neonatal death: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2003;327:313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health organization. Abortions Per 1000 Live Births in 2015. Washington, DC: WHO European Health Information Gateway, 2018.Google Scholar
Say, L, Chou, D, Gemmill, A, et al. Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2014;2:e323e333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mccall, SJ, Flett, G, Okpo, E, Bhattacharya, S. Who has a repeat abortion? Identifying women at risk of repeated terminations of pregnancy: analysis of routinely collected health care data. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2016;42:133142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilander, H, Alehagen, S, Svedlund, L, et al. Likelihood of repeat abortion in a Swedish cohort according to the choice of post abortion contraception: a longitudinal study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2016;95:565571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Den Branden, Y, Verhaeghe, S, Goossens, J, et al. The prevalence of unplanned pregnancy ending in birth, associated factors, and health outcomes. Hum Reprod 2016;31:28212833.Google Scholar
Trussell, J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011;83:397404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diedrich, JT, Klein, DA, Peipert, JF. Long-acting reversible contraception in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:364.e1364.e12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare. UK Medical Eligibility for Contraceptive Use (UKMEC). 2016.Google Scholar
Blanchard, K, Harper, C, Schaffer, K, et al. Advance provision of emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2:CD005497.Google Scholar
Wellings, K, Jones, KG, Mercer, CH, et al. The prevalence of unplanned pregnancy and associated factors in Britain: findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). Lancet 2013;382:18071816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe. Cologne: WHO, 2010.Google Scholar
Kirby, D. The impact of schools and school programs upon adolescent sexual behavior. J Sex Res 2002;39:2733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, E, Glasier, A. Return of ovulation and menses in postpartum nonlactating women: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:657662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, EA, Brown, SJ. Does method of birth make a difference to when women resume sex after childbirth? BJOG 2013;120:823830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, R, Cameron, S, Briggs, R, Forson, N, Glasier, A. Postpartum contraception: a missed opportunity to prevent unintended pregnancy and short inter-pregnancy intervals. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2016;42:9398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare. Contraception after pregnancy guideline. 2017.Google Scholar
Cameron, ST, Craig, A, Sim, J, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of introducing routine antenatal contraceptive counselling and provision of contraception after delivery: the APPLES pilot evaluation. BJOG 2017;124:20092015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenthal, PD, Voedisch, A, Gemzell-Danielsson, K. Strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:121137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, SJ, Tepper, NK, Kapp, N, et al. Progestogen-only contraceptive use among breastfeeding women: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:226252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tepper, N, Phillips, S, Kapp, N, Gaffield, M, Curtis, K. Combined hormonal contraceptive use among breastfeeding women: an updated systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:262274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonalkar, S, Kapp, N. Intrauterine device insertion in the postpartum period: a systematic review. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2015;20:418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopez, LM, Van Vliet, HA, Grimes, DA, Schulz, KF, Stanwood, NL. Immediate post-partum insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;5:CD003036.Google Scholar
Makins, A, Taghinejadi, N, Sethi, M, et al. FIGO postpartum intrauterine device initiative: complication rates across six countries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2018;143:2027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Washington, CI, Jamshidi, R, Thung, SF, et al. Timing of postpartum intrauterine device placement: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril 2015;103:131137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, J, Sauer, MV. Assessing fertility in women of advanced reproductive age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:758770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Office of National Statistics. Conceptions in England and Wales: 2016. 2017.Google Scholar
Lehtinen, M, Dillner, J. Clinical trials of human papillomavirus vaccines and beyond. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013;10:400410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Agency For Research On Cancer (IARC). Cancer today. 2018. Available from: Scholar
Hartwig, S, St Guily, JL, Dominiak-Felden, G, Alemany, L, de Sanjose, S. Estimation of the overall burden of cancers, precancerous lesions, and genital warts attributable to 9-valent HPV vaccine types in women and men in Europe. Infect Agent Cancer 2017;12:19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joura, EA, Pils, S. Vaccines against human papillomavirus infections: protection against cancer, genital warts or both? Clin Microbiol Infect 2016;22(Suppl 5):S125–SS27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pils, S, Joura, EA. From the monovalent to the nine-valent HPV vaccine. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:827833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harder, T, Wichmann, O, Klug, SJ, et al. Efficacy, effectiveness and safety of vaccination against human papillomavirus in males: a systematic review. BMC Med 2018;16:110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munoz, N, Kjaer, SK, Sigurdsson, K, et al. Impact of human papillomavirus (HPV)-6/11/16/18 vaccine on all HPV-associated genital diseases in young women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:325339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arbyn, M, Xu, L, Simoens, C, Martin-Hirsch, PP. Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;5:CD009069.Google ScholarPubMed
Joura, EA, Giuliano, AR, Iversen, OE, et al. A 9-valent HPV vaccine against infection and intraepithelial neoplasia in women. N Engl J Med 2015;372:711723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Rijn, VM, Mooij, SH, Mollers, M, et al. Anal, penile, and oral high-risk HPV infections and HPV seropositivity in HIV-positive and HIV-negative men who have sex with men. PLoS One 2014;9:e92208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luostarinen, T, Apter, D, Dillner, J, et al. Vaccination protects against invasive HPV-associated cancers. Int J Cancer 2018;142:21862187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehtinen, M, Paavonen, J, Wheeler, CM, et al. Overall efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against grade 3 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:8999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshikawa, H, Ebihara, K, Tanaka, Y, Noda, K. Efficacy of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16 and 18) vaccine (GARDASIL) in Japanese women aged 18-26 years. Cancer Sci 2013;104:465472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drolet, M, Benard, E, Boily, MC, et al. Population-level impact and herd effects following human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2015;15:565580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kavanagh, K, Pollock, KG, Cuschieri, K, et al. Changes in the prevalence of human papillomavirus following a national bivalent human papillomavirus vaccination programme in Scotland: a 7-year cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect Dis 2017;17:12931302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesher, D, Panwar, K, Thomas, SL, et al. The impact of the national HPV vaccination program in England using the bivalent HPV vaccine: surveillance of type-specific hPV in young females, 2010–2016. J Infect Dis 2018;218:911921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, LY, Garland, SM. Human papillomavirus vaccination: the population impact. F1000Res 2017;6:866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyrgiou, M, Athanasiou, A, Paraskevaidi, M, et al. Adverse obstetric outcomes after local treatment for cervical preinvasive and early invasive disease according to cone depth: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016;354:i3633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, F, Cofie, LE, Berenson, AB. Cervical cancer incidence in young U.S. females after human papillomavirus vaccine introduction. Am J Prev Med 2018;55:197204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO-GACVS. Safety update of HPV vaccines. 2017. Available from: Scholar
Kjaer, SK, Nygard, M, Dillner, J, et al. A 12-year follow-up on the long-term effectiveness of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in 4 Nordic countries. Clin Infect Dis 2018:339345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castellsague, X, Munoz, N, Pitisuttithum, P, et al. End-of-study safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of quadrivalent HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine in adult women 24–45 years of age. Br J Cancer 2011;105:2837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, SE, Kjaer, SK, Sigurdsson, K, et al. Evaluation of quadrivalent HPV 6/11/16/18 vaccine efficacy against cervical and anogenital disease in subjects with serological evidence of prior vaccine type HPV infection. Hum Vaccin 2009;5:696704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joura, EA, Garland, SM, Paavonen, J, et al. Effect of the human papillomavirus (HPV) quadrivalent vaccine in a subgroup of women with cervical and vulvar disease: retrospective pooled analysis of trial data. BMJ 2012;344:e1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, SM, Paavonen, J, Jaisamrarn, U, et al. Prior human papillomavirus-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccination prevents recurrent high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after definitive surgical therapy: post-hoc analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Int J Cancer 2016;139:28122826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghelardi, A, Parazzini, F, Martella, F, et al. SPERANZA project: HPV vaccination after treatment for CIN2. Gynecol Oncol 2018;151:229234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brisson, M, Benard, E, Drolet, M, et al. Population-level impact, herd immunity, and elimination after human papillomavirus vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis of predictions from transmission-dynamic models. Lancet Public Health 2016;1:e8e17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jit, M, Brisson, M, Portnoy, A, Hutubessi, R. Cost-effectiveness of female human papillomavirus vaccination in 179 countries: a PRIME modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 2014;2:e406e414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, FX, Robles, C, Diaz, M, et al. HPV-FASTER: broadening the scope for prevention of HPV-related cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13:119132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, JMG, Jungner, G, World Health Organization. Principles and practice of screening for disease. 1968. Available at: Scholar
Lheureux, S, Gourley, C, Vergote, I, Oza, AM. Epithelial ovarian cancer. Lancet 2019;393:12401253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundar, S, Neal, RD, Kehoe, S. Diagnosis of ovarian cancer. BMJ 2015;351:h4443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurman, RJ, Shih, IeM. The dualistic model of ovarian carcinogenesis: revisited, revised, and expanded. Am J Pathol 2016;186:733747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Permuth-Wey, J, Sellers, T. Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: an update. In: Advances in Diagnosis and Management of Ovarian Cancer. New York: Springer, 2014.Google Scholar
Committee on the State of the Science in Ovarian Cancer Research, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Ovarian Cancers: Evolving Paradigms in Research and Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Henderson, JT, Webber, EM, Sawaya, GF. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, formerly Systematic Evidence Reviews, in screening for ovarian cancer: an updated evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Report 17-05231-EF-1. 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, IJ, Menon, U, Ryan, A, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387:945956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, AN, Fraser, LSM, Philpott, S, et al. Evidence of stage shift in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during phase II of the United Kingdom Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:14111420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blyuss, O, Burnell, M, Ryan, A, et al. Comparison of longitudinal CA125 algorithms as a first-line screen for ovarian cancer in the general population. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:47264733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simmons, AR, Fourkala, EO, Gentry-Maharaj, A, et al. Complementary longitudinal serum biomarkers to CA125 for early detection of ovarian cancer. Cancer Prev, Res 2019;12:391400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nebgen, DR, Hurteau, J, Holman, LL, et al. Bilateral salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy for ovarian cancer risk reduction: a pilot study in women with BRCA1/2 mutations. Gynecol Oncol 2018;150:7984.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moyer, VA. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:271281.Google ScholarPubMed
Hartmann, LC, Lindor, MN. The role of risk-reducing surgery in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;374:454468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, MR, Kamara, D, Karlan, BY, Pharoah, PDP, Gayther, SA. Genetic epidemiology of ovarian cancer and prospects for polygenic risk prediction. Gynecol Oncol 2017;147:705713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, Z, Yu, H, Wu, Y, et al. Systematic evaluation of cancer-specific genetic risk score for 11 types of cancer in The Cancer Genome Atlas and Electronic Medical Records and Genomics cohorts. Cancer Med 2019;8:31963205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures Atlanta, GA: ACS, 2019.Google Scholar
American Cancer Society. Detailed Guide: endometrial cancer: what are the risk factors for endometrial cancer? 2019. Available at: Scholar
Okuda, T, Sekizawa, A, Purwosunu, Y, et al. Genetics of endometrial cancers. Obstet Gynecol Int 2010;2010:984013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colombo, N, Preti, E, Landoni, F, et al. Endometrial cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2013;24;Suppl 6:vi33vi38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, I, Gentry-Maharaj, A, Burnell, M, et al. Sensitivity of transvaginal ultrasound screening for endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study within the UKCTOCS cohort. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:3848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walboomers, JM, Jacobs, MV, Manos, MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:1219.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ronco, G, Dillner, J, Elfström, KM, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014;383:524532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitchener, HC, Canfell, K, Gilham, C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilham, C, Sargent, A, Kitchener, HC, Peto, J. HPV testing compared with routine cytology in cervical screening: long-term follow-up of ARTISTIC RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019;23:144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rositch, AF, Koshiol, J, Hudgens, MG, et al. Patterns of persistent genital human papillomavirus infection among women worldwide: a literature review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 2013;133:12711285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebisch, RM, de Kuyper-de Ridder, GM, Bosgraaf, RP, et al. The clinical value of HPV genotyping in triage of women with high-risk-HPV-positive self-samples. Int J Cancer 2016;139:691699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, MJ, Castle, PE, Lorincz, AT, et al. The elevated 10-year risk of cervical precancer and cancer in women with human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 and the possible utility of type-specific HPV testing in clinical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:10721079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daponte, A, Pournaras, S, Mademtzis, I, et al. Evaluation of high-risk human papillomavirus types PCR detection in paired urine and cervical samples of women with abnormal cytology. J Clin Virol 2006;36:189193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daponte, A, Tsezou, A, Oikonomou, P, et al. Use of real-time PCR to detect human papillomavirus-16 viral loads in vaginal and urine self-sampled specimens. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14:619621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polman, NJ, Ebisch, RMF, Heideman, DAM, et al. Performance of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse: a randomised, paired screen-positive, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:229238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arbyn, M, Smith, SB, Temin, S, et al.. Detecting cervical precancer and reaching underscreened women by using HPV testing on self samples: updated meta-analyses. BMJ 2018;363:k4823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schiffman, M, Kinney, WK, Cheung, LC, et al. Relative performance of HPV and cytology components of cotesting in cervical screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018;110:501508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoler, MH, Wright, TC, Parvu, V, et al. HPV testing with 16, 18, and 45 genotyping stratifies cancer risk for women with normal cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 2019;151:433444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO. WHO Guidelines on Management of Health Complications from Female Genital Mutilation. Geneva: WHO, 2016.Google Scholar
WHO. Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement. OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. 2008.Google Scholar
Bader, D. Picturing female circumcision and female genital cosmetic surgery: a visual framing analysis of Swiss newspapers, 1983–2015. Feminist Media Stud. 2019. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1560348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity. Medically unnecessary genital cutting and the child’s right to bodily integrity. AJOB. 2019. doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, R, Odgaard-Jensen, J, Fretheim, A, Underland, V, Vist, G. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the obstetric consequences of female genital mutilation/cutting. Obstet Gynecol Int 2014:542859.Google ScholarPubMed
Berg, R, Underland, V, Odgaard-Jensen, J, Fretheim, A, Vist, G. Effects of female genital cutting on physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2014;21:e006316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNICEF. Female Genita Mutilation/Cutting: a Global Concern. New York: UNICEF, 2016.Google Scholar
European Institute for Gender Equality. Female genital mutilation in the European Union and Croatia report. 2013.Google Scholar
UNICEF, Suisse, Santé Sexuelle Suisse. Excision: La période qui entoure la naissance-une charnière de la prévention. Zurich: UNICEF, 2016.Google Scholar
FIGO. Georgian government bans FGM. 2017. Available at: Scholar
Ibrahim, ZTE. FGM in Sri Lanka: It’s never ‘just a nick’. 2017. Available at: Scholar
Abdulcadir, J, Botsikas, D, Bolmont, M, et al. Sexual anatomy and function in women with and without genital mutilation: a cross-sectional study. J Sex Med 2016;13:226237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nour, NM, Michels, KB, Bryant, AE. Defibulation to treat female genital cutting: effect on symptoms and sexual function. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:5560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, R, Underland, V. The obstetric consequences of female genital mutilation/cutting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Int 2013;2013:496564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, RC, Denison, E, Fretheim, A. Psychological, Social and Sexual Consequences of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, 2010.Google ScholarPubMed
Knipscheer, J, Vloeberghs, E, van der Kwaak, A, van den Muijsenbergh, M. Mental health problems associated with female genital mutilation. BJPsych Bulletin 2015;39:273277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tumiati, MC. Psychological Dimensions of FGM: Female Genital Mutilation – from Anthropology to Medicine. Rome: np, 2016.Google Scholar
Antonetti Ndiaye, EFS, Beltran, L. Benefits of multidisciplinary care for excised women. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jgyn.2015.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdulcadir, J, Bianchi Demicheli, F, Willame, A, Recordon, N, Petignat, P. Post-traumatic stress disorder relapse following clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation: a case report. Obstet Gynecol. 2017. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouedraogo, CM, Madzou, S, Simpore, A, et al. [Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation at CHU Yalgado of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. About 68 patients operated]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2016;45:10991106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nappi, R, Salonia, A, Traish, AM, et al. Clinical biologic pathophysiologies of women’s sexual dysfunction. J Sex Med 2005;2:425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atallah, S, Johnson-Agbakwu, C, Rosenbaum, T, et al. Ethical and sociocultural aspects of sexual function and dysfunction in both sexes. J Sex Med 2016;13:591606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foldes, P, Cuzin, B, Andro, A. Reconstructive surgery after female genital mutilation: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 2012;380:134141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnsdotter, S. How pro-orgasm intentions in anti-FGM campaigning backfire. 20th World Congress for Sexual Health; 12–16 June 2011.Google Scholar
Catania, L, Abdulcadir, O, Puppo, V, et al. Pleasure and orgasm in women with female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). J Sex Med 2007;4:16661678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdulcadir, J, McLaren, S, Boulvain, M, Irion, O. Health education and clinical care of immigrant women with female genital mutilation/cutting who request postpartum reinfibulation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;135:6972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdulcadir, J, Marras, S, Catania, L, et al. Defibulation: a visual reference and learning tool. J Sex Med 2018;15:601611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO. Care of Girls and Women Living with Female Genital Mutilation: A Clinical Handbook. Washington, DC: WHO, 2018.Google Scholar
Abdulcadir, J, Rodriguez, M, Say, L. Research gaps in the care of women with female genital mutilation: an analysis. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2015;3:294303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merckelbagh, HM, Nicolas, MN, Piketty, MP, Benifla, JL. [Assessment of a multidisciplinary care for 169 excised women with an initial reconstructive surgery project]. Gynecologie, Obstetrique Fertilite 2015;43:633639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordal, MGG. Body, Migration, Re/constructive Surgeries Making the Gendered Body in a Globalized World. New York: Routledge, 2019.Google Scholar
Abdulcadir, J, Tille, JC, Petignat, P. Management of painful clitoral neuroma after female genital mutilation/cutting. Reprod Health. 2017. doi:10.1186/s12978-017-0288-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, RC, Taraldsen, S, Said, MA, Sorbye, IK, Vangen, S. The effectiveness of surgical interventions for women with FGM/C: a systematic review. BJOG. 2017. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdulcadir, J, Dallenbach, P. Overactive bladder after female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) type III. BMJ Case Reports 2013;2013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esu, E, Udo, A, Okusanya, BO, Agamse, D, Meremikwu, MM. Antepartum or intrapartum deinfibulation for childbirth in women with type III female genital mutilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2017;136(Suppl. 1):2129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Female genital mutilation and its management. Green-top Guideline No. 53. 2015.Google Scholar
Hussen, AO, Catania, L. Deinfibulazione terapeutica. Il Ginecologo Rivista di Ostetricia e Ginecologia 2006;1:7278.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, MI, Say, L, Abdulcadir, J, Hindin, MJ. Clinical indications for cesarean delivery among women living with female genital mutilation. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2017. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mistry, H, Jha, S. Pregnancy with a pinhole introitus: a report of two cases and a review of the literature. Eur J Contraception Reprod Health care 2015;20:490494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C, Nour, N. Surgical techniques: defibulation of type III female genital cutting. J Sex Med 2007;4:15441547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thabet, SM, Thabet, AS. Defective sexuality and female circumcision: the cause and the possible management. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2003;29:1219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdulcadir, JRM, Say, L. Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation/cutting: a systematic review of the evidence. IJOG 2015;129:9397.Google Scholar
Thonnon, C. Évaluation de la qualité de vie sexuelle après réparation d’excision. Lyon: Université de Lyon Est, 2014.Google Scholar
Abramowicz, S, Oden, S, Dietrich, G, Marpeau, L, Resch, B. [Anatomic, functional and identity results after clitoris transposition]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2016;45:963971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevrot, A, Lousquy, R, Arfi, A, et al. [Operative technique: the clitoral transposition]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2015;44:787791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vital, M, de Visme, S, Hanf, M, et al. Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) to evaluate sexual function in women with genital mutilation undergoing surgical reconstruction: a pilot prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;202:7174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ouedraogo, CM, Madzou, S, Toure, B, et al. Practice of reconstructive plastic surgery of the clitoris after genital mutilation in Burkina Faso: report of 94 cases. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 2013;58:208215.Google ScholarPubMed
Abdulcadir, J, Rodriguez, MI, Petignat, P, Say, L. Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation/cutting: case studies. J Sex Med. 2015. doi:10.1111/jsm.12737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulletti, C, Coccia, ME, Battistoni, S, Borini, A. Endometriosis and infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 2010;27:441447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burney, RO, Giudice, LC. Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2012;98:511519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, JL, Elias, S, Malinak, LR, Buttram, VC. Heritable aspects of endometriosis: I. Genetic studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;137:327331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sapkota, Y, Steinthorsdottir, V, Morris, AP, et al. Meta-analysis identifies five novel loci associated with endometriosis highlighting key genes involved in hormone metabolism. Nat Commun 2017;8:15539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vikhlyaeva, EM, Khodzhaeva, ZS, Fantschenko, ND. Familial predisposition to uterine leiomyomas. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1995;51:127131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cha, P-C, Takahashi, A, Hosono, N, et al. A genome-wide association study identifies three loci associated with susceptibility to uterine fibroids. Nat Genetics 2011;43:447450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hellwege, JN, Jeff, JM, Wise, LA, et al. A multi-stage genome-wide association study of uterine fibroids in African Americans. Hum Genet 2017;136:13631373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rafnar, T, Gunnarsson, B, Stefansson, OA, et al. Variants associating with uterine leiomyoma highlight genetic background shared by various cancers and hormone-related traits. Nat Commun 2018;9:3636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodge, JC, Morton, CC. Genetic heterogeneity among uterine leiomyomata: insights into malignant progression. Hum Mol Genet 2007;16:R713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandberg, AA. Updates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors: leiomyoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2005;158:126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomlinson, IPM, Alam, NA, Rowan, AJ, et al. Germline mutations in FH predispose to dominantly inherited uterine fibroids, skin leiomyomata and papillary renal cell cancer. Nat Genet 2002;30:406410.Google ScholarPubMed
Ding, T, Hardiman, PJ, Petersen, I, et al. The prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome in reproductive-aged women of different ethnicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2017;8:9635196358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vink, JM, Sadrzadeh, S, Lambalk, CB, Boomsma, DI. Heritability of polycystic ovary syndrome in a Dutch twin-family study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:21002104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coviello, AD, Sam, S, Legro, RS, Dunaif, A. High prevalence of metabolic syndrome in first-degree male relatives of women with polycystic ovary syndrome is related to high rates of obesity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009;94:43614366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barber, TM, Bennett, AJ, Groves, CJ, et al. Disparate genetic influences on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and type 2 diabetes revealed by a lack of association between common variants within the TCF7L2 gene and PCOS. Diabetologia 2007;50:23182322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shen, W-J, Li, T-R, Hu, Y-J, Liu, H-B, Song, M. Relationships between TCF7L2 genetic polymorphisms and polycystic ovary syndrome risk: a meta-analysis. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2014;12:210219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wojciechowski, P, Lipowska, A, Rys, P, et al. Impact of FTO genotypes on BMI and weight in polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 2012;55:26362645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xita, N, Tsatsoulis, A, Chatzikyriakidou, A, Georgiou, I. Association of the (TAAAA)n repeat polymorphism in the sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) gene with polycystic ovary syndrome and relation to SHBG serum levels. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:59765980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, A, Ikonomi, E, Dimou, NL, Douma, L, Bagos, PG. Polymorphisms of the insulin receptor and the insulin receptor substrates genes in polycystic ovary syndrome: a Mendelian randomization meta-analysis. Mol Genet Metab 2010;99:174183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, L, Luo, J, Peng, Q, et al. Lack of association of INS VNTR polymorphism with polycystic ovary syndrome: a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014;31:675681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, M, Xiao, J, Zhao, X, Liu, C, Chen, Q. Four polymorphisms of the CAPN 10 gene and their relationship to polycystic ovary syndrome susceptibility: a meta-analysis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2012;76:431438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Z-J, Zhao, H, He, L, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies susceptibility loci for polycystic ovary syndrome on chromosome 2p16.3, 2p21 and 9q33.3. Nat Genet 2011;43:5559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, Y, Zhao, H, Shi, Y, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies eight new risk loci for polycystic ovary syndrome. Nat Genet 2012;44:10201025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Day, F, Karaderi, T, Jones, MR, et al. Large-scale genome-wide meta-analysis of polycystic ovary syndrome suggests shared genetic architecture for different diagnosis criteria. PLoS Genet 2018;14:e1007813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okuda, T, Sekizawa, A, Purwosunu, Y, et al. Genetics of endometrial cancers. Obstet Gynecol Int 2010;2010:984013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kloor, M, von Knebel Doeberitz, M. The immune biology of microsatellite-unstable cancer. Trends Cancer 2016;2:121133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hampel, H, Frankel, WL, Martin, E, et al. Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). N Engl J Med 2005;352:18511860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sehgal, R, Sheahan, K, O’Connell, PR, et al. Lynch syndrome: an updated review. Genes (Basel) 2014;5:497507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, TH, Thompson, DJ, O’Mara, TA, et al. Five endometrial cancer risk loci identified through genome-wide association analysis. Nat Genet 2016;48:667674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferla, R, Calò, V, Cascio, S, et al. Founder mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Ann Oncol 2007;18(Suppl. 6):vi93vi98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrij-Bosch, A, Peelen, T, van Vliet, M, et al. BRCA1 genomic deletions are major founder mutations in Dutch breast cancer patients. Nat Genet 1997;17:341345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, S, Parmigiani, G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:13291333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antoniou, A, Pharoah, PDP, Narod, S, et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 2003;72:11171130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begg, CB, Haile, RW, Borg, A, et al. Variation of breast cancer risk among BRCA1/2 carriers. JAMA 2008;299:194201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrucelli, N, Daly, MB, Feldman, GL. Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer due to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Genet Med 2010;12:245259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Unger, MA, Nathanson, KL, Calzone, K, et al. Screening for genomic rearrangements in families with breast and ovarian cancer identifies BRCA1 mutations previously missed by conformation-sensitive gel electrophoresis or sequencing. Am J Hum Genet 2000;67:841850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eccles, BK, Copson, E, Maishman, T, Abraham, JE, Eccles, DM. Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists. BMC Cancer 2015;15:936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plon, SE, Eccles, DM, Easton, D, et al. Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum Mutat 2008;29:12821291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Will, JF. A brief historical and theoretical perspective on patient autonomy and medical decision making: Part II: The autonomy model Chest 2011;139:14911497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oken, D. What to tell cancer patients. A study of medical attitudes. JAMA 1961;175:11201128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lexis Library.Gynaecology – ovarian cyst – unnecessary removal left ovary: Riley -v- North Manchester Health Authority Medicine and Public Health. Case Reviews. Clinical Risk I 1995;1.4(151).Google Scholar
Coffman, A, Torgeson, A, Lloyd, S. Correlates of refusal of surgery in the treatment of non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;26:98108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashcroft, RE. From public interest to political justice. special section: dissecting bioethics. Camb Q Healthcare Ethics 2004;13:2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mello, MM, Chandra, A, Gawande, AA, Studdert, DM. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:15691577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turley, LA. The Hippocratic oath. JAMA 1939;113:24422443.Google Scholar
Williams, S. On the defensive. Africa Casebook 2011;19:810.Google Scholar
Sheth, SS, Malpani, AN. Inappropriate use of new technology: impact on women’s health. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1997;58:159165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, BK. ASA closed claims in obstetrics: lessons learned. Anesthesiol Clin North America 2003;21:183197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazor, KM, Simon, SR, Yood, RA, et al. Health plan members’ views about disclosure of medical errors. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:409418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buttigieg, GG, Buttigieg, G. Medico-legal litigation: the clinical contractual nature of the obstetric anaesthetist–patient relationship. Malta Med J 2014;26:4448.Google Scholar
Stirrat, GM. How to approach ethical issues: a brief guide. Ethics. Obstetrician Gynaecologist 2003;5:214217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EALM Working Group on Medical Malpractice. Malpractice and medical liability European guidelines on methods of ascertainment and criteria of evaluation. Int J Legal Med 2013;127:545557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, A, Pinto, F, Faggian, A, et al. Sources of error in emergency ultrasonography. Crit Ultrasound J 2013;5(Suppl 1):S1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Driscoll, V. Case in focus: bowel injury during laparoscopic sterilization. Medicine and Public Health. Clin Risk 2004;10:109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Library. UK regulatory materials summaries. 2017.Google Scholar
Egorova, N, Moskowitz, A, Gelijns, A et al. Managing the prevention of retained surgical instruments: what is the value of counting? Ann Surg 2008;247:1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellet, L, Maher, P. Forgotten surgical items: lessons for all to learn. Gynaecol Surg 2013;10:295297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLannen v Newcastle Health Authority [1991] Lexis Citation 2507. Queen’s Bench Division.Google Scholar
Roberts v South Bedfordshire Health Authority. [1996] Lexis Citation 5619. Queen’s Bench Division.Google Scholar
Driscoll, V. Case in focus: Bowel injury during laparoscopic sterilization – Vanessa Palmer v Cardiff & Vale NHS Trust. Clin Risk 2004;10:109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. Medical records and issues in negligence. Indian J Urol 2009;3:384388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lexis Library. Gynaecology – laparoscopy – perforation of bowel. Clin Risk 2003;9:72.Google Scholar
Lexis Library. Stillbirth following abdominal surgery. Tucker -v- North Tees Health Authority. Medicine and Public Health. Case Reviews. Clin Risk 1995;1:151.Google Scholar
Venner v North East Essex Health Authority and Another. [1987] Lexis Citation 1288. Queen’s Bench.Google Scholar