ReviewSexual medicine2020
The Contrasting Evidence Concerning the Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexual Function, Sensation, and Pleasure: A Systematic Review.
Review in Sexual medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical evaluation of contrasting evidence on whether male circumcision has adverse psychological effects: A systematic review.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Does the evidence support circumcision of infant males in the United Kingdom?-a systematic review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Penile cancer treatment and sexuality: a narrative review.International journal of impotence research · 2025Review
- Assessment of the Knowledge and Attitudes of Muslim Religious Officials Regarding Male Circumcision: The Case of Turkey.Journal of religion and health · 2025Article
- Foreskin care: Hygiene, importance of counselling, and management of common complications.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2025Review
- Phimosis in Adults: Narrative Review of the New Available Devices and the Standard Treatments.Clinics and practice · 2024Review
- Neonatal Male Circumcision: Clearly Beneficial for Public Health or an Ethical Dilemma? A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- 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
- [Development of circumcision rates in Germany since the approval of ritual circumcision : A population-based analysis from 2013 to 2018].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Factors influencing satisfaction with male circumcision in Taiwan.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- [175 years of anesthesia and narcosis-Towards a "human right to unconsciousness"].Der Anaesthesist · 2021Review
- Male Circumcision Due to Phimosis as the Procedure That Is Not Only Relieving Clinical Symptoms of Phimosis But Also Improves the Quality of Sexual Life.Sexual medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionActive debate concerns whether male circumcision (MC) affects sexual function, penile sensation, or sexual pleasure.
aimTo perform a systematic review examining the effect of MC on these parameters.
methodsPRISMA-compliant searches of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were performed, with "circumcision" used together with appropriate search terms. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were rated for quality by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network system.
main outcome measureEvidence rated by quality.
resultsSearches identified 46 publications containing original data, as well as 4 systematic reviews (2 with meta-analyses), plus 29 critiques of various studies and 15 author replies, which together comprised a total of 94 publications. There was overall consistency in conclusions arising from high- and moderate-quality survey data in randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, physiological studies, large longitudinal studies, and cohort studies in diverse populations. Those studies found MC has no or minimal adverse effect on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure, with some finding improvements. A consensus from physiological and histological studies was that the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, are involved in neurological pathways mediating erogenous sensation. In contrast to the higher quality evidence, data supporting adverse effects of MC on function, sensation, or pleasure were found to be of low quality, as explained in critiques of those studies.
conclusionThe consensus of the highest quality literature is that MC has minimal or no adverse effect, and in some studies, it has benefits on sexual functions, sensation, satisfaction, and pleasure for males circumcised neonatally or in adulthood. Morris BJ, Krieger JN. The Contrasting Evidence Concerning the Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexual Function, Sensation, and Pleasure: A Systematic Review. Sex Med 2020;8:577-598.
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.