SynthesisInternational wound journal2023
Wound healing rates and wound problems of conventional circumcision compared with ring circumcision: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Wound healing rates and wound problems of conventional circumcision compared with ring circumcision: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- Retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and early complications of conventional circumcision techniques and thermocautery-assisted circumcision.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- RETRACTION: Wound Healing Rates and Wound Problems of Conventional Circumcision Compared With Ring Circumcision: A Meta-Analysis.International wound journal · 2025Article
- Biological welding: a rapid and bloodless approach to circumcision.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-02-02Compromised Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A meta-analysis investigation was executed to measure the wound healing rates (WHRs) and wound problems (WPs) of conventional circumcision (CC) compared with ring circumcision (RC). A comprehensive literature investigation till March 2023 was applied and 2347 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 16 chosen investigations enclosed 25 838 individuals, with circumcision, were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 3252 of them were RC, and 2586 were CC. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the value of the WHRs and WPs of CC compared with RC by the dichotomous or continuous approaches and a fixed or random model. RC had a significantly lower wound infection rate (WIR) (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.91, P = .002) and wound bleeding rate (WBR) (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.42, P < .001) compared with those with CC. However, RC and CC had no significant difference in WHR (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, -0.73 to 5.09, P = .14), wound edema rate (WER) (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.92-1.33, P = .28), and wound dehiscence rate (WDR) (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.60-1.58, P = .93). RC had significantly lower WIR, and WBR, however, no significant difference in WHR, WER, and WDR compared with those with CC. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.
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.