Trial reportPloS one2016
Sutureless Adult Voluntary Male Circumcision with Topical Anesthetic: A Randomized Field Trial of Unicirc, a Single-Use Surgical Instrument.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02443792 (Adult Male Circumcision With Unicirc Under Topical Anesthetic vs Open Surgical Circumcision), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Adult Male Circumcision With Unicirc Under Topical Anesthetic vs Open Surgical Circumcision: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review: Safety of surgical male circumcision in context of HIV prevention public health programmes.Gates open research · 2022Pooled it
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Comment On: A novel circumcision technique for adult phimosis combining three techniques: a retrospective comparative study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Voluntary male medical circumcision of pre-school-aged boys in primary care.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.BJU international · 2022Review
- Review of investigational medical devices' clinical trials and regulations in Africa as a benchmark for new innovations.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Review
- Minimally invasive, sutureless, adolescent male circumcision with topical anesthetic: a field trial of Unicirc, a single-use surgical instrument.Translational andrology and urology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization has solicited rapid and minimally invasive techniques to facilitate scale-up of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC). STUDY
designNon-blinded randomized controlled field trial with 2:1 allocation ratio.
participants75 adult male volunteers.
settingOutpatient primary care clinic.
interventionOpen surgical circumcision under local anesthetic with suturing vs. Unicirc disposable instrument under topical anesthetic and wound sealing with cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Intraoperative duration. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Intraoperative and postoperative pain; adverse events; time to healing; patient satisfaction; cosmetic result.
resultsThe intraoperative time was less with the Unicirc technique (median 12 vs. 25 min, p < 0.001). Wound healing and cosmetic results were superior in the Unicirc group. Adverse events were similar in both groups.
conclusionsVMMC with Unicirc under topical anesthetic and wound sealing with cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive is rapid, heals by primary intention with superior cosmetic results, and is potentially safer and more cost-effective than open surgical VMMC.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02443792.
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.