15,695
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→The UTI scare: Wikify.
}}</ref> Based on their observations of these old charts, they reported that [[intact]] boys had a slightly higher rate of bacteriuria (bacteria in the [[urine]]) than [[circumcised]] boys during their first year of life, leading to the sensational statistic that [[circumcision]] resulted in a "ten to hundred times decrease in urinary tract infections in circumcised boys."
Wiswell's findings generated a great deal of controversy at the time. The prepuce (foreskin) is a protective organ, and one would not normally expect the removal of a healthy organ to reduce the risk of infections.<ref name="Cunningham 1986"/> Nevertheless, the apparent correlation of [[intact ]] [[foreskin ]] to bacteriuria (and hence UTI) prompted the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP) to review the evidence available in 1989.
=== Confounding factors to Wiswell's work ===
* No information on rooming-in or breastfeeding history for the infants before they were hospitalized was recorded. [[Breastfeeding]] and rooming-in are important factors in the prevention of UTI.<ref name="Winberg 1989"/> (See above.)
* Breastfeeding is a major confounding factor in any study of the role of [[circumcision]] in UTI. The Wiswell studies and all other studies in the literature fail to control for the effects of [[breastfeeding]]. The AAP observes that "breastfeeding status has not been evaluated systematically in studies assessing UTI and circumcision status."<<ref name="Sreenarasimhaiah 1998"/>
=== Even if... ===