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

ISRN Urol · 2014 · PMC4040210 · PMID 24944836

Europe PMC DOI

hedged sentences

—

closest p

—

boldest claim

The sentences

of borderline significanceno p-value reported

found “reduced risk of HSV-2 infection was of borderline significance (summary RR= 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01)” [ 4 ].

also in 2,624 other papers

showed a trendno p-value reported

In a previous meta-analysis Van Howe stated, “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).

also in 53,322 other papers

a nonsignificant trendno p-value reported

In the 2009 meta-analysis by Waskett et al., use of the actual source data resulted in an OR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.78–1.55), indicating a nonsignificant trend towards a protective effect of circumcision against NGU [ 22 ].

also in 5,406 other papers

approaches statistical significanceno p-value reported

This results in a statement that, “the finding approaches statistical significance (95% CI , 0.70–1.03).” But the analysis showed there was no significant difference.

also in 141 other papers

Quoted from the open-access full text in Europe PMC under the licence the publisher applied. The sentence is reproduced exactly as published; the emphasis is ours.