Trial reportPloS one2026
Cost comparison of the ShangRing device versus Mogen clamp for early infant male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe World Health Organization (WHO) endorses male circumcision as an effective human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention intervention in settings where the expected impact is greatest, including Sub-Saharan Africa. Data on cost implications of early infant male circumcision (EIMC) are limited. The ShangRing (SR) is a WHO pre-qualified device for circumcision. We sought to perform a comprehensive cost assessment alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SR versus the standard of care Mogen clamp (MoC) for EIMC to enable future scale-up towards a cost-effective HIV prevention strategy.
methodsWe collected resource utilization and economic data as part of an RCT of infants aged 0-60 days old undergoing EIMC in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Cost data for both the SR and MoC included baseline facility costs, direct costs, and indirect costs. The Decision Makers Program Planning Tool v1.0 was used to perform a direct cost comparison of these two devices. The Goals model was used to compare the costs of EIMC in 2023 using the present value of money to circumcise an adolescent male 15 years from now.
resultsA total of 1,378 infant males underwent circumcision, 689 via SR and 689 via MoC. The overall cost of a single EIMC in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda were 61.30 United States Dollars ($), $47.14, and $64.59 respectively for the SR, and $56.38, $50.43, and $58.57 respectively for the MoC. In Kenya, EIMC would be less expensive based on nominal present costs in 2023 compared to waiting for adolescent circumcision at age 15 years in 2038. This finding is reversed in Tanzania and Uganda.
conclusionsThe overall cost of EIMC via SR versus MoC is comparable in an RCT. With scale-up utilizing lower level personnel, the cost of SR may be further reduced. The SR is an attractive alternative for future EIMC initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa to further reduce HIV burden.
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.