Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35935913›Full record

ReviewArab journal of urology2022

Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yavuz Güler, Gökhun Çağdaş Özmerdiven, Akif Erbin

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arab journal of urology, 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Safety, Complications, and Procedural Efficiency of Neonatal Circumcision Devices: A Network Meta-Analysis.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yavuz GülerUrology Department, İstanbul Rumeli University, Private Safa Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7770-8013
Gökhun Çağdaş ÖzmerdivenUrology Department, İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi, VM Medical Park Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.
Akif ErbinUrology Department, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey.
Haseki Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRIstanbul Aydın University · TRTC İstanbul Rumeli Üniversitesi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: To determine the advantages and disadvantages of both methods by comparing classic circumcision methods with circumcision methods assisted by ring instruments. Material-Methods: Only studies that compared open procedures and ring devices for male circumcision were included. A total of 6226 patients were examined in 14 studies. The methodological quality of RCT was evaluated using Cochrane collaboration's tools. The Review Manager software statistical package was used to analyze the ORs for dichotomous variables and the mean differences for continuous variables. The proportion of heterogeneity across the studies was tested using the I 2 index. Potential publication bias was assessed by identifying the presence of visual asymmetry/symmetry with funnel plot studies. Results: There were 1812 patients in the open circumcision group and 4414 patients in the ring groups. In total, there was no difference identified between the groups. The open procedure had an advantage compared to the Plastibell subgroup for hemorrhage, while in the other two subgroups, the ring instrument groups had the advantage. Statistically significant in favor of ring devices was found in operating time.There was no difference between the groups for early (postoperative) pain scores. For late-period pain scores, differences with statistical significance were identified in favor of ring devices both in subgroups and in total. For satisfaction, apart from one study in the PrePex group, statistical significance was obtained in favor of ring devices for the other subgroups and in total. Conclusion: The main factors in favor of the use of ring instruments for circumcision are the short total surgical duration, not requiring advanced surgical experience, ease of learning and application, and patient relative satisfaction rates. However, it is a condition to know open circumcision methods and to have experience of this surgery for use in situations with hemorrhage complications, mainly, and without ring instruments of appropriate size.

Indexed as

Circumcisionplastibellprepexring devicesshang ring

Identifiers

PMID35935913
PMCPMC9354637
OpenAlexW4281389955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.