Reports of repetitive penile-genital penetration often have no definitive evidence of penetration.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES
The goals were to evaluate the association of definitive hymenal findings with the number of reported episodes of penile-genital penetration, pain, bleeding, dysuria, and time since assault for girls presenting for nonacute, sexual assault examinations.
METHODS
Charts of all girls 5 to 17 of age who provided a history of nonacute, penile-genital, penetrative abuse were reviewed. Interviews and examinations occurred over a 4-year period at a children's advocacy center. Characteristics of the histories provided by the subjects were examined for associations with definitive findings of penetrative trauma.
RESULTS
Five hundred six patients were included in the study. Of the 56 children with definitive examination results, 52 had no history of consensual penile-vaginal intercourse and all were > or =10 years of age. Analysis was unable to detect an association between the number of reported penile-genital penetrative events and definitive genital findings. Eighty-seven percent of victims who provided a history of >10 penetrative events had no definitive evidence of penetration. A history of bleeding with abuse was more than twice as likely for subjects with definitive findings. Children <10 years of age were twice as likely to report >10 penetrative events, although none had definitive findings on examination.
CONCLUSIONS
Most victims who reported repetitive penile-genital contact that involved some degree of perceived penetration had no definitive evidence of penetration on examination of the hymen. Similar results were seen for victims of repetitive assaults involving perceived penetration over long periods of time, as well as victims with a history of consensual sex.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.