Trial reportAsian journal of andrology
Circumcision with "no-flip Shang Ring" and "Dorsal Slit" methods for adult males: a single-centered, prospective, clinical study.
Trial report in Asian journal of andrology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Phimosis in Adults: Narrative Review of the New Available Devices and the Standard Treatments.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Comparison of a modified Mogen clamp and classic dorsal slit circumcision under local anesthesia: A clinical study.Current urology · 2022Article
- Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arab journal of urology · 2022Review
- Evaluation of clinical curative effects of disposable stitching instrument in redundant prepuce patients.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper was aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of adult male circumcision using the Shang Ring™ (SR) with the no-flip technique compared with Dorsal Slit (DS) surgical method. A single-centered, prospective study was conducted at the West China Hospital, where patients were circumcised using the no-flip SR (n = 408) or the DS (n = 94) procedure. The adverse events (AEs) and satisfaction were recorded for both groups, and ring-removal time and percentage of delayed removals were recorded for the SR group. Finally, complete follow-up data were collected for 76.1% of patients (SR: n = 306; DS: n = 76). The average ring-removal time for the SR group was 17.62 ± 6.30 days. The operation time (P < 0.001), pain scores during the procedure (P < 0.001) and at 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.001), bleeding (P = 0.001), infection (P = 0.034), and satisfaction with penile appearance (P < 0.001) in the SR group were superior to those in the DS group. After two postoperative weeks, the percentage of patients with edema in the SR group (P = 0.029) was higher but no differences were found at 4 weeks (P = 0.185) between the two groups. In conclusions, the no-flip SR method was found to be superior to the DS method for its short operation time (<5 min), involving less pain, bleeding, infection, and resulting in a satisfactory appearance. However, the time for recovery from edema took longer, and patients may wear device for 2-3 weeks after the procedure.
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.