Karen A. Duggan: Difference between revisions

Line 13:

Duggan is a Sydney based Nephrologist (renal specialist). She is listed as a co-author of the [[Circumcision Academy of Australia|CAA]]’s defining document, ‘Infant male circumcision: An evidence based policy statement’.

In its discussion of urinary tract infections ([[UTI]]’s) and renal disease, the CAA document claimed that a UK study had found that ‘cumulative prevalence (of UTI’s) to age 16 was 3.6% in [[uncircumcised]] boys’, however the article in question actually made no reference at all to the [[circumcision]] status of the boys included in its study. The CAA document also claimed that circumcision ‘protects against recurrence’ of UTI’s. It cited an article in the ''[[Journals|Journal of the American Medical Association]]'' (JAMA) as supporting evidence for that claim, however the JAMA article stated quite clearly that ‘the lack of circumcision documentation in 47% of male children limited our ability to accurately assess risk based on this important factor’.<ref name="IAUS"/>

In its discussion of urinary tract infections ([[UTI]]’s) and renal disease, the CAA document claimed that a UK study had found that ‘cumulative prevalence (of UTI’s) to age 16 was 3.6% in [[uncircumcised]] boys’, however the article in question actually made no reference at all to the [[circumcision]] status of the boys included in its study. The CAA document also falsely claimed that [[circumcision]] ‘protects against recurrence’ of UTI’s. It cited an article in the ''[[Journals|Journal of the American Medical Association]]'' (JAMA) as supporting evidence for that claim, however the JAMA article stated quite clearly that ‘the lack of circumcision documentation in 47% of male children limited our ability to accurately assess risk based on this important factor’.<ref name="IAUS"/>

</blockquote>

* [[Australia]]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Duggan is a Sydney based Nephrologist (renal specialist). She is listed as a co-author of the [[Circumcision Academy of Australia|CAA]]’s defining document, ‘Infant male circumcision: An evidence based policy statement’.
-In its discussion of urinary tract infections ([[UTI]]’s) and renal disease, the CAA document claimed that a UK study had found that ‘cumulative prevalence (of UTI’s) to age 16 was 3.6% in [[uncircumcised]] boys’, however the article in question actually made no reference at all to the [[circumcision]] status of the boys included in its study. The CAA document also claimed that circumcision ‘protects against recurrence’ of UTI’s. It cited an article in the ''[[Journals|Journal of the American Medical Association]]'' (JAMA) as supporting evidence for that claim, however the JAMA article stated quite clearly that ‘the lack of circumcision documentation in 47% of male children limited our ability to accurately assess risk based on this important factor’.<ref name="IAUS"/>
+In its discussion of urinary tract infections ([[UTI]]’s) and renal disease, the CAA document claimed that a UK study had found that ‘cumulative prevalence (of UTI’s) to age 16 was 3.6% in [[uncircumcised]] boys’, however the article in question actually made no reference at all to the [[circumcision]] status of the boys included in its study. The CAA document also falsely claimed that [[circumcision]] ‘protects against recurrence’ of UTI’s. It cited an article in the ''[[Journals|Journal of the American Medical Association]]'' (JAMA) as supporting evidence for that claim, however the JAMA article stated quite clearly that ‘the lack of circumcision documentation in 47% of male children limited our ability to accurately assess risk based on this important factor’.<ref name="IAUS"/>
 </blockquote>
+{{SEEALSO}}
+* [[Australia]]
 {{REF}}