ArticlePloS one2017
What device would be best for early infant male circumcision in east and southern Africa? Provider experiences and opinions with three different devices in Kenya.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) reduces risk of HIV acquisition in heterosexual men by approximately 60%. As some countries approach targets for proportions of adolescents and adults circumcised, some are considering early infant male circumcision (EIMC) as a means to achieve sustainability of VMMC for long term reduction of HIV incidence. Evaluations of specialized devices for EIMC are important to provide programs with information required to make informed decisions about how to design safe, effective EIMC programs. We provide assessments by 11 providers with experience in Kenya employing all three of the devices most likely to be considered by various EIMC programs in east and Southern Africa. There was no one device that was seen to be clearly superior to the others. Each had its own advantages and disadvantages. Provider preferences were situation-specific. Most preferred the Mogen Clamp if they themselves were performing the procedure. However, most were concerned that not everyone will have the skills necessary for optimal safety. If someone else were circumcising their son, most would opt for the AccuCirc because of the risk of severing the glans when using the Mogen. A minority preferred the PrePex, but only if the baby received local anesthesia, not EMLA cream (a eutectic mixture of lidocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%), as presently prescribed by the manufacturer. In the context of a national EIMC program, all participants agreed that AccuCirc would be the device they would recommend due to protection of the glans from laceration and to the provision of a pre-assembled sterile kit that overcomes the need for additional supplies or autoclaving. All agreed that scaling up EIMC, integrating it with existing maternal child health services, will face significant challenges, not least of which is persuading already over-burdened providers to take on additional workload. These results will be useful to programmers considering introduction of EIMC services in sub-Saharan African settings.
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.