16,712
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Phimosis diagnosis issues: Add text and citation.
|DOI=10.1111/j.1464-410x.1980.tb02945.x
|accessdate=2021-09-05
}}</ref>
Several papers critical of phimosis diagnosis practice in the UK were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Rickwood & Walker (1989) reported that in the Mersey region (northwest England) "many boys are circumcised for development non-retractability of the prepuce rather than for true phimosis and that in consequence some two-thirds of the operations are unnecessary."<ref name="rickwood1989">{{REFjournal
|last=Rickwood
|pubmedID=2802472
|pubmedCID=2499015
|DOI=
|accessdate=2021-09-05
}}</ref> Griffiths & Frank (1992) also expressed concern regarding the apparent inability of general practitioners to distinguish between a true phimosis and a developmentally non-retractile foreskin. They pointed out, "Not surprisingly, the diagnostic inaccuracy was greatest when the referring doctor did not examine the patient."<ref name="griffiths1992">{{REFjournal
|last=Griffiths
|first=
|init=D
|author-link=
|last2=Frank
|first2=
|init2=JD
|author2-link=
|etal=no
|title=Inappropriate circumcision referrals by GPs
|trans-title=
|language=
|journal=J R Soc Med
|location=
|date=1992
|volume=85
|issue=
|article=
|page=
|pages=324-5
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/griffiths-frank/
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=1625262
|pubmedCID=1293493
|DOI=
|accessdate=2021-09-05
}}</ref>
{{REF}}
[[Category:UK]]