Our Review Summary
This story reports on two recent reviews evaluating the risks and benefits for male circumcision, which may factor into how the American Academy of Pediatrics revises its current neutral stance on infant circumcision. As this piece points out, each review comes to different conclusions regarding the benefits and risks associated with male circumcision; however, a clearer discussion on how the outcome of studies involving adult circumcision performed on men in Africa may not necessarily translate well to infant circumcision in the U.S., would have been useful.
Why This Matters
Male circumcision is an important and emotionally charged debate in health care.
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
This story did not discuss the cost of circumcision or its coverage by insurance companies. Currently, some state Medicaid programs do not cover its cost.
Not Satisfactory
The piece does not provide any data illustrating how circumcision may or may not impact the rates of STD, including HIV/AIDS. This seems like a glaring omission given that these are the benefits of the procedure. Instead, the story ends with one expert’s quote – "we have a lot of evidence for some benefit" – but without the details.
Not Satisfactory
The story points out that the risks of adverse events from circumcision vary between the two reviews, with one review reporting a complication rate of less than 1%, while the other suggests it is as high as 10%. However, the piece failed to indicate that the lower rate pertains to neonates and the higher rate includes neonates and men who were circumcised as adults. As the Annals of Family Medicine review mentions, adult circumcision may be associated with a higher risk of complications. That’s a pretty important distinction to make for readers.
As mentioned above, the story did not provide any data regarding the psychological harms, which one researcher suggests are linked to circumcision.
Not Satisfactory
There were some quotes about the evidence not being “robust” or that it is lacking in some areas. But the ending quote – often the one that may have the greatest impression on readers – said "we have a lot of evidence for some benefit." But the story didn’t provide much discussion of what the evidence was. At the very least, the story could have mentioned the drawbacks and merits of review articles.
Satisfactory
While studies have found that circumcised men in Africa have a lower risk of contracting HIV compared to uncircumcised men, this piece points out that these results may not translate to the U.S., as AIDS is much less prevalent here. Furthermore, in Africa, HIV is primarily spread by heterosexual sex, whereas, in the U.S., men who have sex with men make up the majority of newly diagnosed cases, a point that could have been made here.
In addition, one of the researchers indicates that circumcision may lead to “significant anger, or feeling incomplete, hurt, frustrated, abnormal or violated.” No evidence was provided in the story to suggest how many men feel this way or whether these feelings occur in adult circumcision cases only.
Satisfactory
This story included remarks from a pediatrician, who is also on the American Academy of Pediatrics task force, as well as an assistant professor working in the field of AIDS and STD.
Not Satisfactory
This story does not discuss other ways to reduce the risk of contracting or transmitting STDs, such as condom use and other safe sex practices. Just one brief line could have easily addressed this.
Not Applicable
The option to circumcise a newborn male in the U.S. is not in question.
Not Applicable
Infant circumcision is widely performed in the U.S. and is not a novel procedure. However, since the review articles included studies on adult circumcision, it would have been interesting to know how many U.S. males undergo this procedure.
Satisfactory
This story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Total Score: 3 of 8 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.