ArticleScientific reports2016
The characteristics of circular disposable devices and in situ devices for optimizing male circumcision: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.BJU international · 2022Review
- Circumcision and its effects in Africa.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In situ device (ISD) and circular disposable device (CDD) are used for optimizing male circumcision (MC), but evidence to explore the characteristics of these two devices is insufficient. In order to explore this issue systematically and provide reliable evidence, ten published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the safety and efficacy of ISDs and CDDs were included (involving 4649 men). Moderate quality of the RCTs included was found after assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were processed in stata 13.0 and AIDDS v1.16.6 respectively. According to the outcomes that were statistically significant in both pairwise and network meta-analyses, ISD was found to have less intraoperative blood loss (IB), less operative time (OT) and less incidence of wound bleeding (WB) than conventional circumcision (CC); ISD was found to have less WB but more wound healing time (WHT) than CDD; CDD was found to have less IB and less OT than CC. CDD tended to have the best wound healing condition and least pain experience; ISD tended to have the least IB, least OT, least WB, and highest satisfaction rate. With their own superiorities in many aspects, CDD and ISD are both safe and effective devices for optimizing MC.
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.