Literature DB >> 18073009

Genital ulcerative disease and sexually transmitted urethritis and circumcision: a meta-analysis.

Robert S Van Howe1.   

Abstract

The objective of the study was to determine the relationship of circumcision status to the risk for genital ulcerative disease (GUD) and sexually transmitted urethritis. A MEDLINE search and a review of references in published articles identified studies addressing the risk of sexually transmitted urethritis or GUD based on circumcision status. Meta-analyses, sensitivity analysis, and exploration for publication bias were performed. Thirty articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The data from one study were published twice. GUD showed a trend towards being more common in genitally intact men (random-effects summary odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98-1.82). When comparing men with GUD to men with 'genital discharge syndrome' (GDS), genitally intact men were more likely to have GUD (OR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.70-3.15). There was no difference in the risk for chancroid based on circumcision status (OR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.40-2.05), gonorrhoea (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.82-1.29), or Chlamydia trachomatis infections (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.32-1.19). Genitally intact men were less likely to be diagnosed with 'GDS' (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.67-1.01) or non-specific urethritis (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.64-1.01). Adjustment for publication bias in the literature that applies to chlamydial infections gave a summary OR of 0.46 (95% CI = 0.22-0.97). Significant between-study heterogeneity was a consistent finding. In conclusion, genitally intact men may be at greater risk for GUD, whereas circumcised men may be at greater risk for acquiring sexually transmitted urethritis in general, but there is no statistically significant difference in risk of gonococcal infection. Significant between-study heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias exclude the possibility of reaching a definitive conclusion regarding the association of circumcision status and these sexually transmitted infections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18073009     DOI: 10.1258/095646207782717045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J STD AIDS        ISSN: 0956-4624            Impact factor:   1.359


  11 in total

Review 1.  Is neonatal circumcision clinically beneficial? Argument against.

Authors:  Robert S Van Howe
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Urol       Date:  2009-01-20

2.  Circumcision and non-HIV sexually transmitted infections.

Authors:  Andrew E Macneily; Kourosh Afshar
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 3.  Skin care: Historical and contemporary views.

Authors:  Khalid M AlGhamdi; Fahad A AlHomoudi; Huma Khurram
Journal:  Saudi Pharm J       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  Sexually transmitted infections and male circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Robert S Van Howe
Journal:  ISRN Urol       Date:  2013-04-16

5.  Incremental role of male circumcision on a generalised HIV epidemic through its protective effect against other sexually transmitted infections: from efficacy to effectiveness to population-level impact.

Authors:  M-C Boily; K Desai; B Masse; A Gumel
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.519

6.  Male circumcision and women's risk of incident chlamydial, gonococcal, and trichomonal infections.

Authors:  Abigail Norris Turner; Charles S Morrison; Nancy S Padian; Jay S Kaufman; Frieda M Behets; Robert A Salata; Francis A Mmiro; Tsungai Chipato; David D Celentano; Sungwal Rugpao; William C Miller
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.830

7.  Adult male circumcision does not reduce the risk of incident Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis infection: results from a randomized, controlled trial in Kenya.

Authors:  Supriya D Mehta; Stephen Moses; Kawango Agot; Corette Parker; Jeckoniah O Ndinya-Achola; Ian Maclean; Robert C Bailey
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 5.226

8.  Sexual behaviour does not reflect HIV-1 prevalence differences: a comparison study of Zimbabwe and Tanzania.

Authors:  Munyaradzi P Mapingure; Sia Msuya; Nyaradzai E Kurewa; Marshal W Munjoma; Noel Sam; Mike Z Chirenje; Simbarashe Rusakaniko; Letten F Saugstad; Sake J de Vlas; Babill Stray-Pedersen
Journal:  J Int AIDS Soc       Date:  2010-11-16       Impact factor: 5.396

9.  The Strong Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis.

Authors:  Brian J Morris; Ronald H Gray; Xavier Castellsague; F Xavier Bosch; Daniel T Halperin; Jake H Waskett; Catherine A Hankins
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2011-05-22

Review 10.  Does Male Circumcision Protect against Sexually Transmitted Infections? Arguments and Meta-Analyses to the Contrary Fail to Withstand Scrutiny.

Authors:  Brian J Morris; Catherine A Hankins; Aaron A R Tobian; John N Krieger; Jeffrey D Klausner
Journal:  ISRN Urol       Date:  2014-05-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.