ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2020
'An insight into circumcised men seeking foreskin reconstruction: a prospective cohort study'.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comment: Foreskin restorers: insights into motivations, successes, challenges and experiences with medical and mental health professionals.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Is it time for a time-out? Progress versus politics in studying the psychosexual implications of penile circumcision.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Deficiencies and biases in professional understanding of the effects of childhood male genital cutting: comments on "Psychological, psychosocial and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision" by Marcus C. Tye and Lauren Sardi.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Foreskin restorers: insights into motivations, successes, challenges, and experiences with medical and mental health professionals - An abridged summary of key findings.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- Is Physical Alteration a Sufficient Reason to Prohibit Ritual Infant Circumcision?Journal of religion and health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to present a cohort of men seeking assistance with foreskin reconstruction, with the objective to broaden the general understanding for this specific request. All men between January 2015 and May 2019 seeking assistance with foreskin reconstruction were included. We prospectively collected data on patient demographics and outcomes such as their motivations, treatment trajectory, and experiences. A total of 11 patients were identified and included (age range 20-62). The majority were circumcised during adulthood for medical reasons. Among the most prominent motivations to pursue reconstruction were experiencing impairment of body integrity, feeling mutilated, increasing glans sensitivity and having issues with an imposed cultural or religious identity. Most patients stated that they experienced little support from healthcare professionals and that the Internet was their main source of information. Furthermore, almost all patients practiced penile tissue stretching to reconstruct the foreskin with unregistered devices. Foreskin reconstruction is a scarcely reported topic and is sought out for different reasons. Although rare, these patients experience a heavy burden and will go to great lengths to reconstruct their foreskin, more often so without the involvement of healthcare professions. In contrary to the surgical treatment options, the nonsurgical methods seem promising, but these rely heavily on lay-sources found online.
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.