Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23374102›Full record

ArticleBJU international2013

Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort.

Guy A Bronselaer, Justine M Schober, Heino F L Meyer-Bahlburg, Guy T'Sjoen, Robert Vlietinck, Piet B Hoebeke

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. What is the medical evidence on non-therapeutic child circumcision?International journal of impotence research · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Male genital sensation after spinal cord injury: a review.Translational andrology and urology · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. [Clinical effectiveness of disposable circumcision suture in children: a prospective randomized controlled trial].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2018
    Article
  20. Canadian Urological Association guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants (full version).Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Guy A BronselaerDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Justine M Schober
Heino F L Meyer-Bahlburg
Guy T'Sjoen
Robert Vlietinck
Piet B Hoebeke
Ghent University Hospital · BECenter for Human Genetics · USColumbia University · USUPMC Hamot · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledWHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: The sensitivity of the foreskin and its importance in erogenous sensitivity is widely debated and controversial. This is part of the actual public debate on circumcision for non-medical reason. Today some studies on the effect of circumcision on sexual function are available. However they vary widely in outcome. The present study shows in a large cohort of men, based on self-assessment, that the foreskin has erogenous sensitivity. It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost. In the debate on clitoral surgery the proven loss of sensitivity has been the strongest argument to change medical practice. In the present study there is strong evidence on the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin. This knowledge hopefully can help doctors and patients in their decision on circumcision for non-medical reason.

objectivesTo test the hypothesis that sensitivity of the foreskin is a substantial part of male penile sensitivity. To determine the effects of male circumcision on penile sensitivity in a large sample. SUBJECTS AND

methodsThe study aimed at a sample size of ≈1000 men. Given the intimate nature of the questions and the intended large sample size, the authors decided to create an online survey. Respondents were recruited by means of leaflets and advertising.

resultsThe analysis sample consisted of 1059 uncircumcised and 310 circumcised men. For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.

conclusionsThis study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.

Indexed as

Focus GroupsAdolescentAdultAgedArousalCircumcision, MaleForeskinHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain ThresholdPenisPersonal SatisfactionSensationSexual BehaviorSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID23374102
OpenAlexW3023079217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.