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

ISRN urology Pub Date : 2013-04-16 Print Date: 2013-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2013/109846
Robert S Van Howe
{"title":"Sexually transmitted infections and male circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Robert S Van Howe","doi":"10.1155/2013/109846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The claim that circumcision reduces the risk of sexually transmitted infections has been repeated so frequently that many believe it is true. A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed on studies of genital discharge syndrome versus genital ulcerative disease, genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital ulcerative disease, chancroid, syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, and contracting a sexually transmitted infection of any type. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes, and human papillomavirus are not significantly impacted by circumcision. Syphilis showed mixed results with studies of prevalence suggesting intact men were at great risk and studies of incidence suggesting the opposite. Intact men appear to be of greater risk for genital ulcerative disease while at lower risk for genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, genital warts, and the overall risk of any sexually transmitted infection. In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":89401,"journal":{"name":"ISRN urology","volume":"2013 ","pages":"109846"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/109846","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRN urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/109846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

The claim that circumcision reduces the risk of sexually transmitted infections has been repeated so frequently that many believe it is true. A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed on studies of genital discharge syndrome versus genital ulcerative disease, genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital ulcerative disease, chancroid, syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, and contracting a sexually transmitted infection of any type. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes, and human papillomavirus are not significantly impacted by circumcision. Syphilis showed mixed results with studies of prevalence suggesting intact men were at great risk and studies of incidence suggesting the opposite. Intact men appear to be of greater risk for genital ulcerative disease while at lower risk for genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, genital warts, and the overall risk of any sexually transmitted infection. In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

性传播感染与男性包皮环切:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
包皮环切术降低性传播感染风险的说法被重复得如此频繁,以至于许多人相信这是真的。对生殖器分泌物综合征与生殖器溃疡性疾病、生殖器分泌物综合征、非特异性尿道炎、淋病、衣原体、生殖器溃疡性疾病、软下疳、梅毒、单纯疱疹病毒、人乳头瘤病毒和任何类型的性传播感染的研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。衣原体、淋病、生殖器疱疹和人乳头瘤病毒不受包皮环切术的显著影响。梅毒的研究结果好坏参半,流行率研究表明完好无损的男性有很大的风险,而发病率研究表明相反。完好无损的男性患生殖器溃疡的风险更高,而患生殖器分泌物综合征、非特异性尿道炎、生殖器疣和任何性传播感染的总体风险较低。在对一般人群的研究中,包皮环切术对个体性传播感染的风险没有明确或一致的积极影响。因此,预防性传播感染不能合理地解释为包皮环切术的好处,医学文献中的证据也不支持任何为普通人群进行包皮环切术以预防性传播感染的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书