ReviewUrology research & practice2025
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Penis Length and Circumference According to WHO Regions: Who has the Biggest One?
Review in Urology research & practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Congenital Penile Curvature Is Associated With Larger Penile Dimensions: A Matched Case-Control Study.Andrology · 2026Article
- Are men aware of normal penile length and sexual function? A narrative review of the literature.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Review
- Calculating foreskin surface area based on glans measurements of 143 men using a simplified geometrical model of the foreskin.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Penile Length can be Estimated by the Foot-Length? Study in Human Fetuses with Neural Tube Defects.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of stretched, erect, and flaccid penis length as well as circumference according to geographic WHO regions. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published until February 2024. Studies in which a healthcare professional evaluated the penis size were considered eligible. After assessing the risk of bias, a systematic review and meta-analyses were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement, and the outcomes were grouped based on the WHO regions. Results: A total of 33 studies comprising 36 883 patients were included. The risk of bias in the included studies was moderate/low. A comprehensive systematic review was done and meta-analyses performed for flaccid length [n = 28 201, mean (SE) 9.22 (0.24) cm], stretched length [n = 20 814, mean (SE) 12.84 (0.32) cm], erect length [n = 5669, mean (SE) 13.84 (0.94) cm], flaccid circumference [n = 30 117, mean (SE) 9.10 (0.12) cm], and erect circumference [n = 5168, mean (SE) 11.91 (0.18) cm]. The mean length of the stretched penis was largest in Americans [14.47 (0.90) cm]. The mean length of the flaccid penis was the largest in the Americas [10.98 (0.064) cm]. The mean flaccid penile circumference was largest in Americans [n = 29 714, mean (SE) 10.00 (0.04) cm]. Conclusions: Penis sizes vary across WHO regions, suggesting the need to adjust standards according to geography to better understand councilmen and their partners. These data provide a framework for discussing body image expectations and therapeutic strategies in this sensitive and emotional subject matter.
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.