Infant male circumcision and future health disparities.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Decline in Frequency of Newborn Male Circumcision After Change in Medicaid Coverage Status in Selected States in the United States.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2021
   Article
2. Impact of Health Insurance Type on Trends in Newborn Circumcision, United States, 2000 to 2010.American journal of public health · 2015
   Article
3. Male circumcision: a globally relevant but under-utilized method for the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.Annual review of medicine · 2014
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Male circumcision cost-effective articles ignore methodological problems and ethical concerns.2013
• Comment on
  Costs and effectiveness of neonatal male circumcision.2012

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as