New England Journal of Medicine: Difference between revisions

Consolidate footnotes.
WikiAdmin (talk | contribs)
m reformatted REFs
Line 4: Line 4:


== Shift from neutrality to a pro-circumcision stance ==
== Shift from neutrality to a pro-circumcision stance ==
In 1997, the ''NEJM'' printed a strongly pro-circumcision editorial by Dr. [[Thomas E. Wiswell| Thomas Wiswell]],<ref name="wiswell1997">Wiswell TE. Circumcision circumspection. ''N Engl J Med'' 1997; 336:1244-5.</ref> but did not print the alternative opinion in favor of normal anatomy (see Abstracts & Analysis). When misinformation in Wiswell's editorial was brought to the attention of the editor, there was no attempt to correct Wiswell's exaggerated benefit claims. In contrast, the ''NEJM'' had printed a Sounding Board discussion of circumcision examining the purported advantages and disadvantages of circumcision earlier in 1990.<ref name="schoen1990">Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. ''N Engl J Med'' 1990; 322:1308-12.</ref> <ref>Poland RL. [http://www.cirp.org/library/general/poland/ The question of routine neonatal circumcision]. ''N Engl J Med''. 1990; 322:1312-5.</ref>
In 1997, the ''NEJM'' printed a strongly pro-circumcision editorial by Dr. [[Thomas E. Wiswell|Thomas Wiswell]],<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Wiswell
|first=T.E.
|title=Circumcision circumspection
|journal=N Engl J Med
|date=1997
|volume=336
|pages=1244-1245
}}</ref> but did not print the alternative opinion in favor of normal anatomy (see Abstracts & Analysis). When misinformation in Wiswell's editorial was brought to the attention of the editor, there was no attempt to correct Wiswell's exaggerated benefit claims. In contrast, the ''NEJM'' had printed a Sounding Board discussion of circumcision examining the purported advantages and disadvantages of circumcision earlier in 1990.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Schoen
|first=E.J.
|title=The status of circumcision of newborns
|journal=N Engl J Med
|date=1990
|volume=322
|pages=1308-1312
}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Poland
|first=R.L.
|title=The question of routine neonatal circumcision
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/poland/
|journal=N Engl J Med
|date=1990
|volume=322
|pages=1312-1315
}}</ref>


In a previous article in the ''NEJM'', Royce ''et al''. insinuated that the prepuce may be a risk factor for HIV infections.<ref name="royce1997">Royce RA, Sena A, Cates W Jr, Cohen MS. Sexual transmission of HIV. ''N Engl J Med'' 1997; 336:1072-8.</ref> This factually inaccurate article was referenced in a letter to the editor as proof that circumcision protects an individual from HIV infections.<ref name="laumann1997">Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. [http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/ Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practices, and sexual practice]. ''JAMA'' 1997; 277:1052-7.</ref> The ''NEJM'' failed to mention, however, that Laumann pointed out the fallacy of this logic. "The lack of rigorous, systematic controls for co-factors relevant to the particularities of the African context, the prophylactic status of the presence or absence of the foreskin remains an open question."<ref name="laumann1997" />
In a previous article in the ''NEJM'', Royce ''et al.'' insinuated that the prepuce may be a risk factor for HIV infections.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Royce
|first=R.A.
|last2=Sena
|first2=A.
|last3=Cates Jr
|first3=W.
|last4=Cohen
|first4=M.S.
|title=Sexual transmission of HIV
|journal=N Engl J Med
|date=1997
|volume=336
|pages=1072-1078
}}</ref> This factually inaccurate article was referenced in a letter to the editor as proof that circumcision protects an individual from HIV infections.<ref name="Laumann1997">{{REFjournal
|last=Laumann
|first=E.O.
|last2=Masi
|first2=C.M.
|last3=Zuckerman
|first3=E.W.
|title=Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practices, and sexual practice
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/
|journal=JAMA
|date=1997
|volume=277
|pages=1052-1057
}}</ref> The ''NEJM'' failed to mention, however, that Laumann pointed out the fallacy of this logic. "The lack of rigorous, systematic controls for co-factors relevant to the particularities of the African context, the prophylactic status of the presence or absence of the foreskin remains an open question."<ref name="Laumann1997"/>


== Research the NEJM has overlooked ==
== Research the NEJM has overlooked ==
Circumcision is losing popularity in the United States and has been discredited by the Canadian Pediatric Society<ref>Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1487803/ Neonatal circumcision revisited]. ''Can Med Assoc J'' 1996; 154:769-80.</ref>and the Australasian Pediatric Surgeons<ref>Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons. [http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aaps/ Guidelines for circumcision]. April 1996.</ref> in 1996 position papers. Taylor described the unique innervation of the preputial mucosa in 1996, and its loss to circumcision.<ref>Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. [http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/ The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision]. ''Br J Urol'' 1996; 77:291-95.</ref> Taddio et al. showed that circumcision with and without local anesthesia (EMLA) resulted in negative behavioral changes in a child's response to pain.<ref name="taddio1997">Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. [http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/ Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination]. ''Lancet'' 1997; 349:599-603.</ref> Laumann has shown that circumcision causes sexual behavior changes and an apparent increased risk of many venereal diseases in adult men.<ref name="laumann1997"/> Price has questioned whether parents can ethically change their child's genitalia.<ref>Price (Bull. Medical Ethics).</ref>
Circumcision is losing popularity in the United States and has been discredited by the Canadian Pediatric Society<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society
|title=Neonatal circumcision revisited
|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1487803/
|journal=Can Med Assoc J
|date=1996
|volume=154
|pages=769-780
}}</ref> and the Australasian Pediatric Surgeons<ref>{{REFweb
|publisher=Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
|title=Guidelines for circumcision
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aaps/
|date=1996-04
}}</ref> in 1996 position papers. Taylor described the unique innervation of the preputial mucosa in 1996, and its loss to circumcision.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Taylor
|first=J.R.
|last2=Lockwood
|first2=A.P.
|last3=Taylor
|first3=A.J.
|title=The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
|journal=Br J Urol
|date=1996
|volume=77
|pages=291-295
}}</ref> Taddio et al. showed that circumcision with and without local anesthesia (EMLA) resulted in negative behavioral changes in a child's response to pain.<ref name=Taddio1997>{{REFjournal
|last=Taddio
|first=A.
|last2=Katz
|first2=J.
|last3=Ilersich
|first3=A.L.
|last4=Koren
|first4=G.
|title=Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/
|journal=Lancet
|date=1997
|volume=349
|pages=599-603
}}</ref> Laumann has shown that circumcision causes sexual behavior changes and an apparent increased risk of many venereal diseases in adult men.<ref name="Laumann1997"/> Price has questioned whether parents can ethically change their child's genitalia.<ref>Price (Bull. Medical Ethics).</ref>


The research on EMLA and circumcision presented by Taddio ''et al''. was proclaimed as a major advance.<ref>Taddio A, Stevens B, Craig K, Rastogi P, Ben-David S, Shennan A, Mulligan P, Koren G. Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision. ''N Engl J Med'' 1997; 336:1197-1201.</ref> When the limitations of this form of local anesthesia was brought to the attention of the editors, they failed to print the criticism (see Abstracts & Analysis). They failed to point out that this form of local anesthesia (EMLA) did not prevent the long term negative behavioral response to pain previously reported in the ''Lancet''. <ref name="taddio1997" /> The lack of effects of EMLA on long term negative behavioral changes caused by circumcision was printed in British medical journals.<ref name="taddio1997" /><ref name="taddio1995">Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. [http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/ Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys]. ''Lancet'' 1995; 345:291-2.</ref>
The research on EMLA and circumcision presented by Taddio ''et al.'' was proclaimed as a major advance.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Taddio
|first=A.
|last2=Stevens
|first2=B.
|last3=Craig
|first3=K.
|last4=Rastogi
|first4=P.
|last5=Ben-David
|first5=S.
|last6=Shennan
|first6=A.
|last7=Mulligan
|first7=P.
|last8=Koren
|first8=G.
|title=Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision
|journal=N Engl J Med
|date=1997
|volume=336
|pages=1197-1201
}}</ref> When the limitations of this form of local anesthesia was brought to the attention of the editors, they failed to print the criticism (see Abstracts & Analysis). They failed to point out that this form of local anesthesia (EMLA) did not prevent the long term negative behavioral response to pain previously reported in the ''Lancet''.<ref name=Taddio1997/> The lack of effects of EMLA on long term negative behavioral changes caused by circumcision was printed in British medical journals.<ref name=Taddio1997/><ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Taddio
|first=A.
|last2=Goldbach
|first2=M.
|last3=Ipp
|first3=M.
|last4=Stevens
|first4=B.
|last5=Koren
|first5=G.
|title=Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/
|journal=Lancet
|date=1995
|volume=345
|pages=291-292
}}</ref>


{{REF}}
{{REF}}