Circumcision study flaws: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

~~The~~ '''Circumcision study flaws''' are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by religious and cultural views ~~of many authors~~. Moreover the circumcision status of male authors impacts their views.<ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal

'''Circumcision study flaws''' are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by the authors' religious and cultural views.<ref>{{REFweb

|url=https://circumcision.org/cultural-and-medical-bias/

|title=Cultural and Medical Bias

|last=

|first=

|accessdate=2020-08-02

}}</ref> Moreover. the circumcision status of male authors impacts their views.<ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal

|last=Hill

|first=G.

Line 12:

Line 18:

|pages=318-323

|doi=

}}</ref> <ref>{{REFjournal

}}</ref> <ref name="boyle2012>{{REFjournal

|last=Boyle

|first=Gregory J.

Line 37:

Line 43:

|accessdate=2020-08-02

}}</ref>

Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" /> Consequently, the medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly argumentative, polarized, and [[Bias| biased]].

==Review of the circumcision literature==

Bossio ''et al''. (2014) conducted a comprehensive review of the circumcision literature. They reported that most research was concentrated on finding a benefit for non-therapeutic circumcision and there were large gaps in the knowledge of the sexual health correlates of male circumcision, including:

Line 71:

Line 81:

|accessdate=2020-08-02

}}</ref>

~~==Polarity==~~

The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" />

==Statements from medical trade associations==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Construction Site}}
-The '''Circumcision study flaws''' are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by religious and cultural views of many authors. Moreover the circumcision status of male authors impacts their views.<ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal
+'''Circumcision study flaws''' are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is influenced by the authors' religious and cultural views.<ref>{{REFweb
+ |url=https://circumcision.org/cultural-and-medical-bias/
+ |title=Cultural and Medical Bias
+ |last=
+ |first=
+ |accessdate=2020-08-02
+}}</ref> Moreover. the circumcision status of male authors impacts their views.<ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal
   |last=Hill
   |first=G.
@@ Line 12: / Line 18: @@
   |pages=318-323
   |doi=
-}}</ref> <ref>{{REFjournal
+}}</ref> <ref name="boyle2012>{{REFjournal
   |last=Boyle
   |first=Gregory J.
@@ Line 37: / Line 43: @@
   |accessdate=2020-08-02
 }}</ref>
+Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" /> Consequently, the medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly argumentative, polarized, and [[Bias| biased]].
+==Review of the circumcision literature==
 Bossio ''et al''. (2014) conducted a comprehensive review of the circumcision literature. They reported that most research was concentrated on finding a benefit for non-therapeutic circumcision and there were large gaps in the knowledge of the sexual health correlates of male circumcision, including:
@@ Line 71: / Line 81: @@
   |accessdate=2020-08-02
 }}</ref>
-==Polarity==
-The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" />
 ==Statements from medical trade associations==