ArticleISRN urology2013
Sexually transmitted infections and male circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in ISRN urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Understanding the Evolving Role of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision as a Public Health Strategy in Eastern and Southern Africa: Opportunities and Challenges.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2022Review
- Genitourinary Infections Related to Circumcision and the Potential Impact on Male Infertility.The world journal of men's health · 2022Review
- Non-therapeutic male circumcision in infancy or childhood and risk of human immunodeficiency virus and other sexually transmitted infections: national cohort study in Denmark.European journal of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Seroprevalence and Determinants of ToRCH Pathogens in Pregnant Women in the Sub-Himalayan Region.Cureus · 2022Article
- Effects of HIV voluntary medical male circumcision programs on sexually transmitted infections.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2021Review
- Male circumcision and prostate cancer: A geographical analysis, meta-analysis, and cost analysis.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020Review
- [Sexually Transmitted Infections in the Tropics].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2018Article
- Dorsal longitudinal foreskin cut is associated with reduced risk of HIV, syphilis and genital herpes in men: a cross-sectional study in Papua New Guinea.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2017Article
- Critical evaluation of unscientific arguments disparaging affirmative infant male circumcision policy.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2016Article
- [Differential diagnosis and management of balanitis].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2015Article
- [Male circumcision from an infectiological point of view].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2015Article
- Does Male Circumcision Protect against Sexually Transmitted Infections? Arguments and Meta-Analyses to the Contrary Fail to Withstand Scrutiny.ISRN urology · 2014Review
- Male circumcision and Sexually transmitted Infections - An update.Indian journal of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDSReview
- Prepuce health and childhood circumcision: Choices in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du CanadaReview
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
The claim that circumcision reduces the risk of sexually transmitted infections has been repeated so frequently that many believe it is true. A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed on studies of genital discharge syndrome versus genital ulcerative disease, genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital ulcerative disease, chancroid, syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, and contracting a sexually transmitted infection of any type. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes, and human papillomavirus are not significantly impacted by circumcision. Syphilis showed mixed results with studies of prevalence suggesting intact men were at great risk and studies of incidence suggesting the opposite. Intact men appear to be of greater risk for genital ulcerative disease while at lower risk for genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, genital warts, and the overall risk of any sexually transmitted infection. In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.
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.