ArticleWorld journal of clinical pediatrics2017
Early infant male circumcision: Systematic review, risk-benefit analysis, and progress in policy.
Article in World journal of clinical pediatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for management of urinary tract infection and primary vesicoureteric reflux.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Guideline
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Management of pain in newborn circumcision: a systematic review.European journal of pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of the ShangRing for early infant male circumcision in the routine clinical setting.BMJ global health · 2025Trial
- Parental awareness and practices regarding male circumcision timing, setting, and providers: a multicenter cross-sectional survey from Turkey (n = 637).BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Knowledge Level and Attitudes of Family Physicians Regarding Circumcision: A Cross-sectional Study.Rwanda journal of medicine and health sciences · 2026Article
- Prevalence of the most common types of high-risk HPV and p16Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2026Article
- Improving pain score and restraint duration during circumcision.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Male infant circumcision and associated factors in Konso Zone Southern Ethiopia: community based survey.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Factors predictive of recurrence, metastasis and death in node-negative penile squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective multicentre cohort study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Article
- Comparing Penile Problems in Circumcised vs. Uncircumcised Boys: Insights From a Large Commercial Claims Database With a Focus on Provider Type Performing Circumcision.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2024Article
- Early Infant Male Circumcision Decisions in Zambia: Demographic and Familial Influences.AIDS and behavior · 2024Article
- Neonatal Male Circumcision: Clearly Beneficial for Public Health or an Ethical Dilemma? A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Comparison the Diameter of the Urethral Meatus Before and After Circumcision and Evaluation of Urethral Stenosis.Global pediatric health · 2024Article
- Comments by opponents on the British Medical Association's guidance on non-therapeutic male circumcision of children seem one-sided and may undermine public health.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2023Article
- Zambian Parents' Perspectives on Early-Infant Versus Early-Adolescent Male Circumcision.AIDS and behavior · 2023Article
- What is the medical evidence on non-therapeutic child circumcision?International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- Epidemiology, Diagnosis and Management of Penile Cancer: Results from the Spanish National Registry of Penile Cancer.Cancers · 2023Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine whether recent evidence-based United States policies on male circumcision (MC) apply to comparable Anglophone countries, Australia and New Zealand.
methodsArticles in 2005 through 2015 were retrieved from PubMed using the keyword "circumcision" together with 36 relevant subtopics. A further PubMed search was performed for articles published in 2016. Searches of the EMBASE and Cochrane databases did not yield additional citable articles. Articles were assessed for quality and those rated 2+ and above according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Grading System were studied further. The most relevant and representative of the topic were included. Bibliographies were examined to retrieve further key references. Randomized controlled trials, recent high quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses (level 1++ or 1+ evidence) were prioritized for inclusion. A risk-benefit analysis of articles rated for quality was performed. For efficiency and reliability, recent randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, high quality systematic reviews and large well-designed studies were used if available. Internet searches were conducted for other relevant information, including policies and Australian data on claims under Medicare for MC.
resultsEvidence-based policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) support infant and later age male circumcision (MC) as a desirable public health measure. Our systematic review of relevant literature over the past decade yielded 140 journal articles that met our inclusion criteria. Together, these showed that early infant MC confers immediate and lifelong benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections having potential adverse long-term renal effects, phimosis that causes difficult and painful erections and "ballooning" during urination, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various sexually transmissible infections in both sexes, genital ulcers, and penile, prostate and cervical cancer. Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggested that MC has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure. United States studies showed that early infant MC is cost saving. The evidence supporting early infant MC has further strengthened since the positive AAP and CDC reviews.
conclusionAffirmative MC policies are needed in Australia and New Zealand. Routine provision of accurate, unbiased education, and access in public hospitals, will maximize health and financial benefits.
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.