ArticleDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2015
[Male circumcision from an infectiological point of view].
Article in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- What is the medical evidence on non-therapeutic child circumcision?International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Systematic review of complications arising from male circumcision.BJUI compass · 2022Review
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
backgroundIn May 2012 a German regional court (Cologne) declared circumcision on religious grounds in minor boys an illegitimate bodily harm. This led to substantial political and religious discussions, because Jews as well as Muslims consider circumcision as an indispensable element of their religion. Still in 2012 a "circumcision law" was passed by the Federal Council of Germany, which continues to allow circumcision in boys "performed under strict medical conditions".
objectiveHow male circumcision is assessed in terms of infectiology (pros and cons)?
methodElectronic databases were searched for articles about the infection risks of foreskin surgery, and the efficacy of circumcision in reducing the risks of sexual transmission of HIV, herpes viruses, HPV, treponema pallidum, chlamydia, hemophilus ducrey and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.
resultsContra circumcision: The highest risk of neonatal circumcision is hemorrhage (35 %). Among infections surgical wound infection (10 %), meatitis urethrae (8-20 %) and urinary tract infections (2 %) are frequent (depending on the surgical technique). Severe complications like penile necrosis or lethal sepsis are rare (1:20,000). Pro circumcision: Circumcised boys have a reduced risk for urinary tract infections in childhood (1:10). Compared to uncircumcised men circumcised adults have a 50-60 % reduced risk of becoming infected with viral sexually transmitted infections (STIs; HIV, HPV and HSV). This advantage of circumcision is also discussed for the transmission of bacterial STIs (e.g. syphilis and chancroid), but the analysis of different clinical studies is still controversial. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionNeonatal circumcisions (and circumcision in early childhood) are irreparable interventions in the physical integrity, with very few medical indications. The risk of complications is dependent on the education of the circumciser (ritual, medical), analgesia and hygiene. Circumcisions should be performed under optimal surgical and hygienic conditions in informed and self-determined young men only. In adolescents and adults circumcision reduces the risk of the transmission of viral STIs (HIV, HSV, HPV) and there is also probably some effect on the sexual transmission of treponema pallidum and hemophilus ducreyi (insufficient, controversial data). The role of circumcision as an effective procedure to reduce the transmission of STIs is still under discussion, because important additional factors like sexual risk behavior (e.g. unprotected sexual intercourse, promiscuity) have a strong influence on STI epidemiology.
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.