Making the circumcision controversy controversial: going meta and taking aim at the messenger(s): reply to Wamai et al.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2019
   Pooled it

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Debating male circumcision for HIV prevention: a one-sided argument does not represent a legitimate 'controversy' analysis--reply to de Camargo et al.2015
• Commented on by
  LETTER TO THE EDITOR: A response to Wamai et al.2015
• Comment on
  Male circumcision for protection against HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: the evidence in favour justifies the implementation now in progress.2015

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as