ReviewNature reviews. Urology2015
Voluntary medical male circumcision in resource-constrained settings.
Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the penile microbiome in infant male circumcision: Mogen clamp versus Shangring.EBioMedicine · 2024Trial
- Simplifying the ShangRing technique for circumcision in boys and men: use of the no-flip technique with randomization to removal at 7 days versus spontaneous detachment.Asian journal of andrologyTrial
- HIV infection.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Providers' Perceptions and Training Needs for Counseling Adolescents Undergoing Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018Article
- Genital Anaerobic Bacterial Overgrowth and the PrePex Male Circumcision Device, Rakai, Uganda.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2016Article
- The Unicirc(®) instrument enables rapid, single-visit, convenient and safe medical male circumcision.Nature reviews. Urology · 2016Article
- An evidence-based analysis of voluntary medical male circumcision devices.Nature reviews. Urology · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Throughout East and Southern Africa, the WHO recommends voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) to reduce heterosexual HIV acquisition. Evidence has informed policy and the implementation of VMMC programmes in these countries. VMMC has been incorporated into the HIV prevention portfolio and more than 9 million VMMCs have been performed. Conventional surgical procedures consist of forceps-guided, dorsal slit or sleeve resection techniques. Devices are also becoming available that might help to accelerate the scale-up of adult VMMC. The ideal device should make VMMC easier, safer, faster, sutureless, inexpensive, less painful, require less infrastructure, be more acceptable to patients and should not require follow-up visits. Elastic collar compression devices cause vascular obstruction and necrosis of foreskin tissue and do not require sutures or injectable anaesthesia. Collar clamp devices compress the proximal part of the foreskin to reach haemostasis; the distal foreskin is removed, but the device remains and therefore no sutures are required. Newer techniques and designs, such as tissue adhesives and a circular cutter with stapled anastomosis, are improvements, but none of these methods have achieved all desirable characteristics. Further research, design and development are needed to address this gap to enable the expansion of the already successful VMMC programmes for HIV prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26526758What 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.