SynthesisAsian journal of andrology
Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 14 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
14 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
- Efficacy and safety of two disposable circumcision suture devices for circumcision in adults: a prospective comparative multicenter study.International journal of impotence research · 2025Trial
- Subcutaneous tissue-sparing dorsal slit with new marking technique: A novel circumcision method.Medicine · 2019Trial
- Comment on: Efficacy and safety of two disposable circumcision suture devices for circumcision in adults: a prospective comparative multicenter study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Single-operator circumcision using a penile circumcision and suturing device: a pilot comparative feasibility study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Stapler vs. sleeve circumcision for multiple penile condylomata acuminata: a comparative study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimizing treatment strategies for pediatric phimosis and redundant prepuce: a comparative study of traditional circumcision and disposable circumcision stapler.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- A Retrospective Taiwanese-Population-Based Clinical Study on Determining the Efficacy and Safety of Disposable Circumcision Anastomat.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.BJU international · 2022Review
- Article
- [Clinical effectiveness of disposable circumcision suture in children: a prospective randomized controlled trial].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2018Article
- Safety, Complications, and Procedural Efficiency of Neonatal Circumcision Devices: A Network Meta-Analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
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 systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device (DCSD) and conventional circumcision (CC) in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the DCSD and CC for the treatment of redundant prepuce or phimosis in China and abroad. Nine RCTs (1898 cases) were included. Compared with the CC group, the DCSD group had a shorter operative time (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -21.44; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [-25.08, -17.79]; P < 0.00001), shorter wound healing time (SMD = -3.66; 95% CI [-5.46, -1.85]; P < 0.0001), less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -9.64; 95% CI [-11.37, -7.90]; P < 0.00001), better cosmetic penile appearance (odds ratio [OR] =8.77; 95% CI [5.90, 13.02]; P < 0.00001), lower intraoperative pain score, lower 24-h postoperative pain score, lower incidence of infection, less incision edema, and fewer adverse events. There were no differences between the CC and DCSD groups in the incidences of dehiscence, or hematoma. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the DCSD appears to be safer and more effective than CC. However, additional high-quality RCTs with larger study populations are needed.
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.