Trial reportJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2013
Shang Ring versus forceps-guided adult male circumcision: a randomized, controlled effectiveness study in southwestern Uganda.
Trial report in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Wound healing rates and wound problems of conventional circumcision compared with ring circumcision: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review: Safety of surgical male circumcision in context of HIV prevention public health programmes.Gates open research · 2022Pooled it
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- The Spear and Shield intervention to increase the availability and acceptability of voluntary medical male circumcision in Zambia: a cluster randomised controlled trial.The lancet. HIV · 2015Trial
- Male Circumcision Revisited: A Narrative Review of Techniques, Therapeutic Indications, and Preventive Benefits.Cureus · 2025Review
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.BJU international · 2022Review
- Circumcision and its effects in Africa.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Review
- The characteristics of circular disposable devices and in situ devices for optimizing male circumcision: a network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Lower HIV Risk Among Circumcised Men Who Have Sex With Men in China: Interaction With Anal Sex Role in a Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2016Article
- How do you circumcise a nation? The Rwandan case study.BMC medicine · 2014Article
- Clinical trials using the Shang Ring device for male circumcision in Africa: a review.Translational andrology and urology · 2014Review
- Proper surgical training and grading of complications for Shang Ring circumcision are necessary.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adult male circumcision (AMC) reduces HIV transmission, but uptake is limited in part by current surgical methods. We randomized HIV-uninfected men (n = 138) to receive Shang Ring (SR)- or forceps-guided AMC from a locally trained surgeon. In as-treated analyses, more SR procedures were completed within 10 minutes (79% versus 0%, P < 0.01) and more subjects reported high satisfaction (77% versus 58%, P = 0.03). Healing time and pain scores were similar, though minor complication rates were higher in SR subjects (56% versus 24%, P < 0.01). SR circumcision is a rapid and acceptable method of AMC and should be further evaluated to increase uptake of AMC.
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.