Search

Background: Female genital mutilation (FGM) involves partial or complete removal of the external female genitalia or other injury for non-therapeutic reasons. Little is known about the knowledge and skills of doctors who care for affected women and their practice in relation to FGM.Objectives: To examine the FGM experiences and educational needs of doctors.Search Strategy: A structured search of five bibliographic databases was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed research literature published in English between 2004 and 2014 using the keywords "female genital mutilation," "medical," "doctors," "education," and "training."Selection Criteria: Observational, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental descriptive studies were suitable for inclusion.Data Collection and Analysis: A narrative synthesis of the study findings was undertaken and themes were identified.Main Results: Ten papers were included in the review, three of which were from low-income countries. The analysis identified three themes: knowledge and attitudes, FGM-related medical practices, and education and training.Conclusions: There is a need for improved education and training to build knowledge and skills, and to change attitudes concerning the medicalization of FGM and reinfibulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Both misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) gel are used for labor induction in women with premature rupture of membranes (PROM). Objectives To evaluate studies comparing the effects of misoprostol and PGE2 gel in labor induction. Search strategy Databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant papers. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials comparing the use of misoprostol and PGE2 gel for labor induction in women with PROM were included. Data collection and analysis For meta-analyses, the Mantel–Haenszel method was used for dichotomous data, and the inverse variance method was used for continuous data. Main results Four randomized controlled studies (n = 615) were included. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the induction-to-delivery interval (mean difference – 4.44 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI] –9.35 to 0.48), rate of cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR] 0.90; 95% CI 0.44–1.85), and rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57–1.38). Women receiving misoprostol had a significantly higher rate of tachysystole than did those receiving PGE2 gel (OR 4.84; 95% CI 2.46–9.54). Conclusions Misoprostol is as efficacious and safe as PGE2 gel for labor induction in women with PROM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]