ReviewWorld journal of urology2012
Male circumcision and HIV infection risk.
Review in World journal of urology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unlocking the Interactions Between the Whole-Body Microbiome and HPV Infection: A Literature Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Inflammatory changes in the prepuce and clinical findings according to the stages of phimosis.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Contribution of Sex Differences to HIV Immunology, Pathogenesis, and Cure Approaches.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Implementation of an infant male circumcision programme, Pakistan.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021Article
- The DREAMS core package of interventions: A comprehensive approach to preventing HIV among adolescent girls and young women.PloS one · 2018Article
- Evaluation of clinical curative effects of disposable stitching instrument in redundant prepuce patients.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Understanding the socio-economic and sexual behavioural correlates of male circumcision across eleven voluntary medical male circumcision priority countries in southeastern Africa.BMC public health · 2015Article
- Infections in urology.World journal of urology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMale circumcision is being promoted to reduce human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV) infection rates. This review evaluates the scientific evidence suggesting that male circumcision reduces HIV infection risk in high-risk heterosexual populations.
methodsWe followed the updated International Consultation on Urological Diseases evidence-based medicine recommendations to critically review the scientific evidence on male circumcision and HIV infection risk.
resultsLevel 1 evidence supports the concept that male circumcision substantially reduces the risk of HIV infection. Three major lines of evidence support this conclusion: biological data suggesting that this concept is plausible, data from observational studies supported by high-quality meta-analyses, and three randomized clinical trials supported by high-quality meta-analyses.
conclusionsThe evidence from these biological studies, observational studies, randomized controlled clinical trials, meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies is conclusive. The challenges to implementation of male circumcision as a public health measure in high-risk populations must now be faced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.