Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41357715›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Male Circumcision Revisited: A Narrative Review of Techniques, Therapeutic Indications, and Preventive Benefits.

Muhammad Rakib Hasan, Asmita Hossain, Nazmus Sakib

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Muhammad Rakib HasanUrology, Watford General Hospital, West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Watford, GBR.
Asmita HossainUrology, Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Redhill, GBR.
Nazmus SakibGastroenterology and Hepatology, Square Hospitals Limited, Dhaka, BGD.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Male circumcision (MC) is a common pediatric operation and is undertaken for religious, cultural, therapeutic, and preventive reasons. Over the past two decades, MC has been investigated as a method that may reduce heterosexual acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, lower the risk of penile carcinoma, and decrease urinary tract infections in early childhood. This narrative review revisits MC by integrating embryologic and anatomic concepts with contemporary operative techniques, therapeutic indications, and proven preventive benefits across age groups. Conventional open procedures (including dorsal slit, sleeve resection, and forceps-guided circumcision) and device-based methods (such as Plastibell {Caledonia, MI: Aspen Surgical Products, Inc.} and other ring devices) are summarized with emphasis on appropriate anesthesia, perioperative care, and prevention and management of complications. MC is an effective definitive treatment for pathologic phimosis, recurrent balanitis, selected cases of balanitis xerotica obliterans, and recurrent urinary infections, and it may be considered in specific high-risk urologic and dermatologic conditions. Beyond these therapeutic indications, robust data support MC as a durable preventive intervention. When performed by trained providers using standardized techniques, adequate analgesia, and sterile conditions, MC is a safe procedure with predominantly minor, early complications and very low rates of severe adverse events. Ongoing research is needed to refine device selection, expand access in low-resource settings, and clarify long-term functional and sexual outcomes to inform shared decision-making among patients, families, clinicians, and public health policymakers.

Indexed as

balanitiscircumcision techniqueshiv preventionhuman papillomavirusmale circumcisionpediatric urologypenile cancerphimosisurinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID41357715
PMCPMC12681272

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.