ReviewCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2020
Male circumcision and prostate cancer: A geographical analysis, meta-analysis, and cost analysis.
Review in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAttempts to find an association between male circumcision and prostate cancer risk have produced inconsistent results.
methodsAge-standardized prostate cancer incidence, life-expectancy, geographical region, and circumcision prevalence from 188 countries were compared using linear regression analysis. Following a systematic literature review, a meta-analysis was performed on studies meeting inclusion criteria with evaluations of between-study heterogeneity and publication bias. A cost analysis (discounted at 3% and 5% per annum) was performed using the meta-analysis's summary effect and upper confidence interval.
resultsUnivariate analysis revealed a trend for a positive association between country-level age-standardized prostate cancer incidence (per 100 000 person-years) and circumcision prevalence (β=0.0887; 95% confidence interval [CI)]-0.0560, +0.233), while multivariate analysis found a significant positive association (β=0.215; 95% CI 0.114, 0.316). Twelve studies were included in meta-analysis. The random-effects summary odds ratio of the risk of being genitally intact was 1.10 (95% CI 0.96, 1.26, between-study heterogeneity χ
conclusionsCircumcision may be a positive risk factor on geographical analysis, but not in case-case-controlled studies. Circumcision is not economically feasible for preventing prostate cancer.
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.