Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Mar 11;24(1):171.
doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-02951-1.

Effects of pubic hair grooming on women's sexual health: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Asmaa Eltobgy  1   2 , Ahmed Aljabali  3   4 , Ahmed Farag  5   4 , Mohammad Elshorbgy  5   4 , Mona Hamed  6   4 , Esraa Hamouda  7   4 , Heba Hamouda  7   4 , Neveen Refaey  8   4 , Marwa Kabeel  9   4 , Sarah Amro  10   4 , Toka Abouheseba  11   4 , Mohammed Tarek  12   4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effects of pubic hair grooming on women's sexual health: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Asmaa Eltobgy et al. BMC Womens Health. .

Abstract

Background: Pubic hair grooming involves the partial or complete removal of pubic hair, and it is a common practice among men and women. Grooming is more prevalent in women, who employ various methods such as shaving, waxing and laser removal. However, it is associated with variable rates of post-grooming adverse outcomes including lacerations and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing women's sexual health outcomes between those who groom and those who don't.

Methods: We followed the MOOSE guidelines and conducted a computerized-based search using (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid Medline), till June 20th, 2022, for eligible studies using the relevant keywords; (pubic hair grooming) OR (pubic hair removal OR Genital hairless OR Bikini hair removal OR pubic hair depilation). Cross-sectional studies included which compared grooming practices among women in terms of motivation and health outcomes. Women's satisfaction and incidence of STIs were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) respectively.

Results: Twenty-Two cross-sectional studies were included in our review with 73,091 participant.The odds of having gram-negative gonorrheal and chlamydial infection in Pubic hair groomers were found to be statistically significant (OR = 1.55, 95% CI [1.31, 1.84], P < 0.001) (OR = 1.56, 95% CI [1.32, 1.85], P < 0.001] respectively. There was no difference between groomer and non-groomer women regarding viral infections such as genital herpes (OR = 1.40, 95% CI [0.56, 3.50], P = 0.47) and Condyloma acuminata (OR = 1.75, 95% CI [0.51, 6.01], P = 0.37). The most common grooming side effect is genital itching (prevalence = 26.9%, P < 0.001). Non-electrical razor (prevalence = 69.3%, P < 0.001) is the most common grooming method. White women (prevalence = 80.2%, P < 0.001) remove pubic hair more frequently compared to black women (prevalence = 12.2%, P < 0.001). Women practice complete grooming (50.3%, P < 0.001) of the pubic hair more frequently than partial grooming (33.1%, P < 0.001). There are no differences in women's satisfaction between the two groups (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.40], P = 0.39).

Conclusion: This review aligns with previous observational studies regarding sexual health outcomes of pubic hair grooming. There is a need to raise awareness among women regarding the safe practice of pubic hair grooming, emphasizing the clarification of hazards and benefits.

Keywords: Grooming; Meta-analysis; Pubic Hair; STI; Women's Health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Prevalence of grooming practice in [white and black women]
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Prevalence of pubic hair grooming types [complete and partial]
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Prevalence of Grooming methods
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Women grooming satisfaction in [groomers and non-groomers]
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Prevalence of grooming complications. A Genital burning/pain. B Genital rash. C Genital itching. D Genital folliculitis. E Genital allergy
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
STI related to grooming practice; Bacterial infections. A Gram Negative Gonorrheal infection. B Gram Negative Chlamydial infection. Viral Infection. C Genital herpes. D Genital warts (Condyloma acuminata)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Osterberg EC, Gaither TW, Awad MA, Truesdale MD, Allen I, Sutcliffe S, Breyer BN. Correlation between pubic hair grooming and STIs: results from a nationally representative probability sample. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2017;93(3):162–166. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2016-052687. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Luster J, Turner AN, Henry JP, Jr, Gallo MF. Association between pubic hair grooming and prevalent sexually transmitted infection among female university students. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(9):e0221303. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221303. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Butler SM, Smith NK, Collazo E, Caltabiano L, Herbenick D. Pubic hair preferences, reasons for removal, and associated genital symptoms: comparisons between men and women. J Sex Med. 2015;12(1):48–58. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12763. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rowen TS, Gaither TW, Awad MA, Osterberg EC, Shindel AW, Breyer BN. Pubic hair grooming prevalence and motivation among women in the united states. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152:1106–1113. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.2154. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Truesdale MD, Osterberg EC, Gaither TW, Awad MA, Elmer-DeWitt MA, Sutcliffe S, et al. Prevalence of Pubic Hair Grooming-Related Injuries and Identification of High-Risk Individuals in the United States. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:1114–1121. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.2815. - DOI - PMC - PubMed