Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34587354›Full record

ReviewBJU international2022

Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.

Ameer Steven-Jorg Hohlfeld, Sumayyah Ebrahim, Muhammed Zaki Shaik, Tamara Kredo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BJU international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ameer Steven-Jorg HohlfeldCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-1710-1265
Sumayyah EbrahimDepartment of Surgery, School of Clinical Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Muhammed Zaki ShaikDepartment of Surgery, School of Clinical Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Tamara KredoCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the effects of device-based circumcisions compared with standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult males (10 years old and above).

methodsWe performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions to the language of publication or publication status. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of device-based circumcisions compared to standard surgical dissection-based circumcision conducted by health professionals in a medical setting. We reported study results as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and a random-effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

resultsA total of 18 trials met the inclusion criteria. These trials did not report severe adverse events (AEs; 11 trials, 3472 participants). There may be a slight increase in moderate AEs for devices compared to surgical techniques (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.55-3.10; I

conclusionsWe found no serious AEs using a circumcision device compared to surgical techniques. Still, they may slightly increase moderate AEs, and it is unclear whether there is a difference in mild AEs. High-quality trials evaluating this intervention are needed to provide further certainty regarding the rates of AEs. Clinicians, patients, and policymakers can use these results combined with their contextual factors to inform the best approach that suits their healthcare settings.

Indexed as

Circumcision, MaleAdolescentAdultChildHumansMale#Andrologycircumcisionmalemeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34587354
PMCPMC9297972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.