Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeLack of physical examination skewed results
Posted by DanBollinger on 12 May 2012 at 14:13 GMT
Participants in the Nelson, et al. Indiana study self-reported circumcision status in an online form. Risser and Licklider’s 2007 study of the same age group in Texas found that 30% were unsure or mistaken about their circumcision status. Texas and Indiana have similar circumcision incidence and prevalence, so there is no reason to doubt that a similar proportion of Nelson’s participants aren’t also mistaken.
Considering that the number of participants was only 18, and all from the local area, the lack of physical examination for a circumcision scar is inexcusable. Unknown circumcision status at this level severely skews the results, reinforcing the scientist's credo: "Junk in, junk out." I am embarrassed for my Hoosier colleagues, and hope that a study addendum could be published with updated data, or at the very least future studies on this topic will be more thorough.
Risser JMH, Risser WL, Eissa MA, Cromwell PF, Barratt MS, Bortot A. Self-assessment of circumcision status by adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:1095–1097.
RE: Lack of physical examination skewed results
MattJHodgkinson replied to DanBollinger on 14 May 2012 at 13:12 GMT
Competing interests: The commenter Dan Bollinger is the Director of the International Coalition for Genital Integrity and is on the steering committee of Intact America.
RE: Lack of physical examination skewed results
MattJHodgkinson replied to DanBollinger on 15 May 2012 at 13:31 GMT
The authors have responded in a comment at http://www.plosone.org/an...