ArticlePediatric surgery international2022
Comparative analysis on the outcomes in circumcising children using modified Chinese ShangRing and conventional surgical circumcision.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plastic Clamp Versus Conventional Surgical Dissection Technique in Pediatric Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current urology reports · 2024Pooled it
- A modified Shang Ring circumcision surgical technique under local anesthesia for penile torsion in children.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Safety and feasibility of robot-assisted surgery for pediatric patients weighing ≤ 10 kg with congenital biliary dilatation.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Preliminary study of a new magnetic compression technique for circumcision in dogs: An experimental animal model.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Long-term bowel function after single-stage transanal endorectal pull-through in neonatal patients with Hirschsprung disease.Pediatric surgery international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the differences and outcomes of surgical procedures, clinical effect, complications and patients' satisfaction between disposable oval-shaped circumcision device (Modified Chinese ShangRing series, Kiddie love
methodsThe clinical data were retrospectively analyzed in 114 children with phimosis or redundant foreskin undergone circumcision using a disposable oval-shaped circumcision device, a modified Chinese ShangRing series, Kiddie Love
resultsCircumcision was successfully completed in children in both groups. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain scoring in 24 h by VAS, pain at the removal of the device or stitches and wound healing were (6.4 ± 1.6) min, (34.1 ± 6.4) min; (0.7 ± 0.2) ml, (2.6 ± 0.6) ml; (2.2 ± 1.0) points, (1.3 ± 0.5) points; (23.7 ± 3.9)day, (15.9 ± 2.8)day, respectively for Kiddie Love group and conventional group(either P < 0.05 or P > 0.05). The two groups were significantly different in the incidence of hematoma, edema and incision dehiscenceyet were insignificant in incision infection. Children in both groups were followed up from 6 to 31 months (mean: 23 months), and the satisfaction rate was 94.7% (108/114) in parents of the children circumcised by the ShangRing and 83.3% (95/114) in those of children treated by conventional circumcision (P < 0.05).
conclusionModified Chinese ShangRing, Kiddie Love
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.