ReviewSAGE open medicine2019
Voluntary medical male circumcision and HIV infection among men who have sex with men: Implications from a systematic review.
Review in SAGE open medicine, 2019. 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.
- Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex With Men: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2026Pooled it
- Spiraling Risk: Visualizing the multilevel factors that socially pattern HIV risk among gay, bisexual & other men who have sex with men using Complex Systems Theory.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2023Pooled it
- Deficits and opportunities, pivots and shifts for scaling-up voluntary medical male circumcision in Uganda: a qualitative reflexive thematic analysis study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision and Incident HIV Infection Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in China (The CoM Study): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Predicting the long-term impact of voluntary medical male circumcision on HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in Beijing, China.AIDS care · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the rapidly-increased HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men worldwide, the effectiveness of voluntary medical male circumcision as the tool of HIV prevention still remains undetermined. PURPOSE: In the current study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between voluntary medical male circumcision and HIV risk among men who have sex with men. METHODS AND
conclusionFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline, we conducted a comprehensive literature search through multiple databases. A total of 37 articles/abstracts were included in the analysis. We employed random-effects models and subgroup analyses based upon key study characteristics derived from empirical studies. A total of 117,293 men who have sex with men were included in the meta-analysis, and no randomized control trials have been identified. The odds of being HIV positive were 7% lower among men who have sex with men who were circumcised than among men who have sex with men who were uncircumcised (adjusted odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.99). The evidence for the potential protective effect of voluntary medical male circumcision was stronger among men who have sex with men in Asia and Africa (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.73). Our meta-analyses may suggest a protective effect of voluntary medical male circumcision against HIV infection among men who have sex with men, especially in settings like Asia/Africa.
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.