ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2026
Does the evidence support circumcision of infant males in the United Kingdom?-a systematic review.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The United Kingdom (UK) does not have an evidence-based policy on circumcision for non-medical reasons. The aim of this systematic review is to address the question " Methods: A PRISMA-compliant, PROSPERO-registered, systematic review was conducted involving PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases searches for male circumcision articles to January 2024. Those rated high-quality by the Scottish Intercollegiate Grading Network (SIGN) system were included in results. Results: Searches retrieved 183 articles rated as high-quality and relevant to the objectives. These showed early circumcision provided immediate and lifetime medical benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections, penile dermatological inflammation, phimosis, inferior penile hygiene, candida, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as human papillomavirus, genital herpes virus type-2, human immunodeficiency virus, and penile and prostate cancers. NTMC had no long-term adverse effect on sexual function or pleasure. Female partners were at lower STI and cervical cancer risk. A risk-benefit analysis for the UK found benefits of early circumcision exceeded procedural risks by over 200 to one, and that as many as half of uncircumcised males may be affected during their lifetime from an adverse medical condition attributable to foreskin retention. Costs for treatment of these exceeds procedural costs for early NTMC. A recent systematic review found NTMC of male minors is legal and supported by ethical arguments as well as the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child which emphasizes the right to health. Routine provision of accurate, evidence-based information on risks and benefits should assist parents in making an informed decision about circumcision should they have a boy. Cost coverage is warranted. Conclusions: In summary, the medical evidence supports early circumcision as a public health recommendation in the UK.
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.