Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peer-Review Bias Regarding Circumcision in American Medical Publishing

Subverting the Dominant Paradigm

  • Chapter
Male and Female Circumcision

Abstract

In 1962, with the publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn changed forever how we view progress in scientific fields and made “paradigm shift” a household term. Unlike Hegel‘s construct, in which thesis and antithesis clash only to resolve in a new thesis, inadequate scientific paradigms are replaced by newer scientific paradigms that answer the questions and problems better than its predecessor. A paradigm not only provides the theory and foundation under which a science operates, but also determines the questions that need answering and the rules and structure governing the approach to this problem-solving. A paradigm reigns until anomalies for which the paradigm has no explanation accumulate and a new theoretical construct is needed to explain these previously unaccounted for findings. Until a new paradigm replaces the old, science is in a state of crisis. Scientists will align themselves with either one of the competing paradigms until the crisis resolves and a new paradigm determines how science should operate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Planck M. Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. Gaynor F, trans. New York 1949:33–4. Cited by: Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hegel GWF. Reason in History: A General Introduction to the Philosophy of History. Hartman RS, trans. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing. 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schoen EJ. Circumcision updated—indicated? Pediatrics 1993;92:860–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hodges F. A short history of the institutionalization of involuntary sexual mutilation in the United States. In: Denniston GC, Milos MF, eds. Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy. New York Plenum Press. 1997;17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ravich A, Ravich RA. Prophylaxis of cancer of the prostate, penis, and cervix by circumcision. N Y State J Med 1951;51:1519–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilson RA. Circumcision and venereal disease. Can Med Assoc J. 1947;56:54–6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hand EA. Circumcision and venereal disease. Arch Dermatol Syphilology 1949;60:341–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Moses S, Plummer FA, Bradley JE, Ndinya Achola JO, Nagelkerke NJ, Ronald AR. The association between lack of male circumcision and risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological data. Sex Transm Dis 1994;21:201–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ham AW, Cormack DH. Histology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. 1979:898.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Behrman RE, Kliegman FM, Lozoff B. The newborn infant. In Behrman RE, Vaughan VC III eds. Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics. 12th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company. 1983:335.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Glenn JF, Weinerth JL. The male genital system. In Sabiston DC Jr. ed. Davis-Christopher Textbook of Surgery: The Biological Basis of Modern Surgical Practice. 12th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company. 1981:1771–2.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:80.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:165.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:5.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:24.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jacobson B, Nyberg K, Grönbladh L, Eklund G, Bygdeman M, Rydberg U. Opiate addition in offspring through possible imprinting after obstetric treatment. BJM 1990;301:1067–70.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Raine A, Brennan P, Mednick SA. Birth complications combined with early maternal rejection at age 1 year predispose to violent crime at age 18 years. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51:984–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ramsay DS, Lewis M. The effects of birth condition on infants’ cortisol response to stress. Pediatrics 1995;95:546–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cansever G. Psychological effects of circumcision. Br J Med Psychol 1965;38:321–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Richards MP, Bernal JF, Brackbill Y. Early behavioral differences: gender or circumcision? Dev Psychobiol 1976;9:89–95.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hammond T. Long-term consequences of neonatal circumcision: a preliminary poll of circumcised men. In Denniston GC, Milos MF, eds Sexual Mutilations:A Human Tragedy. New York: Plenum Press. 1997:125–9.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. Lancet 1995;345:291–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997;349:599–603.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. Lancet 1995;345:291–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997;349:599–603.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Goldman R. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All. Boston: Vanguard. 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Blass EM, Hoffmeyer LB. Sucrose as an analgesic for newborn infants. Pediatrics 1991;87:215–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Herschel M, Khoshnood B, Ellman C, Maydew N, Mittendorf R. Neonatal circumcision: randomized trial of sucrose pacifier for pain control. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:279–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Maxwell LG, Yaster M, Wetzel RC, Niebyl JR. Penile nerve block for newborn circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:415–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Masciello AL. Anesthesia for neonatal circumcision: local anesthesia is better than dorsal penile nerve block. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:834–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Holve RL, Bromberger PJ, Groveman HD, Klauber MR, Dixon SD, Snyder JM. Regional anesthesia during newborn circumcision. Effect on infant pain response. Clin Pediatr Phila 1983;22:813–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Williamson PS, Williamson ML. Physiologic stress reduction by a local anesthetic during newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 1983;71:36–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Stang HJ, Gunnar MR, Snellman L, Condon LM, Kestenbaum R. Local anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. Effects on distress and cortisol response. JAMA 1988;259:1507–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Butler-O’Hara M, LeMoine C, Guillet. Analgesia for neonatal circumcision: a randomized controlled trial of EMLA cream versus dorsal penile nerve block. Pediatrics 1998; 101(4). URL.: http://www.pediatric.org/cgi/content/full/101/4/e5.

  37. Lander J, Brady-Fryer B, Metcalfe JB, Nazarali S, Muttitt S. Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. JAMA 1997;278:2157–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Williamson ML. Circumcision anesthesia: a study of nursing implications for dorsal penile nerve block. Pediatr Nurs 1997;23:59–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Benini F, Johnston CC, Faucher D, Aranda JV. Topical anesthesia during circumcision in newborn infants. JAMA 1993;270:850–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Addio 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.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mohan CG, Risucci DA, Casimir M, Gulrajani-LaCorte M. Comparison of analgesics in ameliorating the pain of circumcision. J Perinatol 1998;18:13–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lenhart JG, Lenhart NM, Reid A, Chong BK. Local anesthesia for circumcision: which technique is most effective. J Am Board Fam Pract 1997;10:13–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Hardwick-Smith S, Mastrobattista JM, Wallace PA, Ritchey ML. Ring block for neonatal circumcision. Obstetr Gynecol 1998;91:930–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for it occurrence. JAMA 1990, 263:1385–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA 1990, 263:1392–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bliss DP, Healy PJ, Waldhausen JHT. Necrotizing fasciitis after Plastibell circumcision. J Pediatr 1997;131:459–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sherman J, Borer JG, Horowitz M, Glassberg KI. Circumcision: successful glanular reconstruction and survival following traumatic amputation. J Urol 1996;156:842–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Upadhyay V, Hammodat HM, Pease PW. Post circumcision meatal stenosis: 12 years’ experience. N Z Med J 1998;111(1060):57–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Wright JE. The treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid. Aust N Z J Surg 1994;64:327–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kikiros CS, Beasley SW, Woodward AA. The reponse of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int 1993;8:329–32.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jorgensen ET, Svensson A. The treatment of phimosis in boys, with a potent topical steroid (clobeta-sol propionate 0.05%) cream. Acta Derm Venereol1993;73:55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lang K. Eine konservative Therapie der Phimose. Monatsschr. Kinderheilkd 1986;134:824.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Golubovic Z, Milanovic D, Vukadinovic V, Rakic I, Perovic S. The conservative treatment of phimois in boys. Br J Urol 1996;78:786.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Müller I, Müller H. Erne neue konservative Therapie der Phimose. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 1993:141:607.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lindhagen T. Topical clobetasol propionate compared with placebo in the treatment of unretractable foreskin. Eur J Surg 1996;162:969.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Atilla MK, Dündaöz R, Odabas O, Öztürk H, Akin R, Gökçay E. A non-surgical approach to the treatment of phimosis: local nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory ointment application. J Urol 1997;158:196–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Dewan PA, Tieu HC, Chieng BS. Phimosis: is circumcision necessary? J Puediatr Child Health 1996;32:285–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Ruud E, Holt J. Fimose kan behandles med lokale steroider. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 19W, 117:513–4.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Dunn HP. Non-surgical management of phimosis. Aust N Z J Surg 1989;59:963.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Camargo RB. Tratamento da fimose por hormonios Resen Clin Cient 1969;38:169–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Noack R, Salomon B. Die Therapie der Phimose mit Humanchoriongonadotropin. 2 Arztl Fortbild Jena 1990;84:547–9; discussion 550.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Dalela D, Agarwal R. Treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid. Aust N Z J Surg 1995;65:57–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Marzaro M, Cannignola G, Zoppellaro F, Schiavon G, Ferro M, Fusaro F, Bastasin F, Penino G. [Phimosis: when does it require surgical intervention?]. Minerva Pediatr 1997;49:245–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Amuchastegui R. Postectomia con gran colgajo dorsal de mucosa. Rev Argent Urol Nefrol 1970;39:18–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Beaugé M. Conservative Treatment of Primary Phimosis in Adolescents [dissertation]. Saint-Antoine University. Paris VI. 1990-1991.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Caronni EP. La plastica a “M” ne1 trattamento della fimosi congenita ed acquisita. Chir Ital 1967;19:337–45.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Celleghin F, Boatto U. Su di una tecnica operatoria per la correzione ed anatomica della fimosi. Chir Ital 1967;19:1407–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Codega G, Gosse L. Operativnoe lechenie fimoza metodom spiral’noi plastiki krainei ploti. Urol Nefrol Mosk 1973;38(3):56–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Codega G, Guizzardi D, Di Giuseppe P, Fassi P. La plastica elicoidale ne1 trattamento della fimosi. Minerva Chir 1983;38:1903–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Coleridge HC. Problems with the penis and prepuce Preputioplasty should be performed more often. BMJ 1996;312:1230–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Cooper GG, Thomson GJ, Raine PA. Therapeutic retraction of the foreskin in childhood. Br Med J Clin Res Ed 1983;286:186–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Cuckow PM, Rix G, Mouriquand PD. Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision. J Pediatr Surg 1994;29:561–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. de Castella H. Prepuceplasty: an alternative to circumcision. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994;76:257–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Diaz A, Kantor HI. Dorsal slit. A circumcision alternative. Obstet Gynecol1971;37:619–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Emmett AJ. Four V-flap repair of preputial stenosis (phimosis). Plast Reconstr Surg 1975;55:687–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Emmett AJ. Z-plasty reconstruction for preputial stenosis—a surgical alternative to circumcision. Aust Paediatr J 1982;18:219–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Fleet MS, Venyo AK, Rangecroft L. Dorsal relieving incision for the non retractile foreskin. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1995;40:243–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Gaetini AM. La plastica prepuziale con doppio lembo di scorrimento nella terapia della fimosi. Minerva Pediatr 1984;36:905–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Gil Barbosa M, Aguilera Gonzalez C, Alipaz A, Garcia Sanchez JL. La balanolisis como sustituto de la circuncision. Salud Publica Mex 1976;18:893–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Gosse L. La plastie helicoidale de la verge. Traitement du phimosis. Ann Chir Plast 1965;10:277–82.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Hoffman S, Metz P, Ebbehoj J. A new operation for phimosis: prepuce-saving technique with multiple Y-V-plasties. Br J Urol 1984;56:319–21.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Holmlund DE. Dorsal incision of the prepuce and skin closure with Dexon in patients with phimosis. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1973;7:97–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Houdelette P, Peyrottes A, Wodey J. Phimosis relatif en erection. Procédé plastique conservateur par plastie en Z asymetrique. J Urol Paris 1991;97(3):148–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Iwamuro S, Fumta A, Iwanaga S, Noda K, Hatano T, Nakajo H, Tashiro K. [Foreskin retraction for phimosis of the newborn]. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 1997;88:35–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Jankowski A, Misiak E, Mierzynski M. Leczenie operacyjne stulejki u dzieci metoda Gasinskiego. Wiad Lek 1979;32:1607–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Jemec B, Appelquist E, Schultz B. Operation for phimosis med bevarelse af praeputium. Ugeskr Laeger 1979;141:1193–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Leal MJ, Mendes J. A circuncisao ritual e correccao plastica da fimose. Acta Med Port 1994;7:475–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Lim A, Saw Y, Wake PN, Croton RS. Use of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics in the release of preputial adhesions: is it a worthwhile alternative? Br J Urol 1994;73:428–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. MacKinlay GA. Save the prepuce. Painless separation of preputial adhesions in the outpatient clinic. BMJ 1988;297:590–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Marschner G. Zur Technik der Phimosen Operation. Methoden und Ergebnisse. Zentralbl Chir 1971;96:131–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Modelski W, Kmak A. Ein Beitrag zur Operation der Phimose. Z Urol Nephrol 1968;61:791–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Moro G, Gesmundo R, Bevilacqua A, Maiullari E, Gandini R. La circoncisione con postoplastica. Nota di tecnica operatoria. Minenta Chir 1988;43:893–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Muller W, Simon HD. Die operative Korrektur der Phimose nach Moskowin. Zentralbl Chir 1971;96:838–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Ohjimi H, Ogata K, Ohjimi T. A new method for the relief of adult phimosis. J UroI 1995;153:1607–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Ohjimi T, Ohjimi H. Special surgical techniques for relief of phimosis. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1981;7:326–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Parkash S. Phimosis and its plastic correction. J Indian Med Assoc 1972;58:389–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Parkash S, Rao BR. Preputial stenosis—its site and correction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1980;66:281–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Perez-Ono JE, Volpi P, Stel A. Fimosis, su tratamiento quirurgico. Tecnica particular de circuncision. Prensa Med Argent 1966;53:1646–50.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Piotti F, Mascetti M, Gambaro G, Velasco MA. Una tecnica chirurgica conservativa del prepdo negli interventi per fimosi. Minerva Urol 1980; 32:29–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Samdal F, Almdahl SM. Kirurgisk behandling av fimose. En enkel preputiumsparende teknikk. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1988;108:1499.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Tian Y. [Care of phimosis treated with balloon dilatation]. Chung Hua Hu Li Tsa Chih 1994;29:283–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Tofukuji H. [Surgery of phimosis] Shujutsu 1970;24:739–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Wahlin N. “Triple incision plasty”. A convenient procedure for preputial relief Stand J Urol Nephrol 1992;26:107–10.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Ying H, Xu-hua Z. Balloon dilation treatment of phimosis in boys: report of 512 cases. Chinese Med J 1991;104:491–3.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Zavaleta DE, Marino E. Prepuce plastic operation (Enrique Finochietto’s method) for phimosis. Int Surg 1966;46:97–100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Wallerstein E. Circumcision: information misinformation disinformation. Corte Madera, California: National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, 1986. Citing 1970 Finish National Board of Health data.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:5.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Schoen EJ. Circumcision updated—indicated? Pediatrics 1993;92:860–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Weiss GN. Prophylactic neonatal surgery and infectious diseases. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997:16:727–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Weiss GN, Weiss EB. A perspective on controversies over neonatal circumcision. Clin Pediatr Phila 1994;33:726–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1308–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Wiswell TE. Circumcision—an update. Curr Probl Pediatr 1992;22:424–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Wiswell TE. Do you favor... routine neonatal circumcision? Yes. Postgrad Med 1988;84:98,100,102, passim.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Wiswell TE. John K. Lattimer Lecture. Prepuce presence portends prevalence of potentially perilous periurethral pathogens J Urol 1992;148:739–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Wiswell TE. Routine neonatal circumcision: a reappraisal. Am Fam Physician 1990;41:859–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Wiswell TE. Neonatal circumcision: a current appraisal. Focu & Opinions: Pediatrics 1995;1(2):93–9.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Wiswell TE. Circumcision circumspection. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1244–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. O’Brien TR, Calle EE, Poole WK. Incidence of neonatal circumcision in Atlanta, 1985-1986. South Med J 1995;884:11–5.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Moreno CA, Realini JP. Infant circumcision in an outpatient setting. Tex Med 1989;85:37–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:35.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientifk Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:80.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Horrobin DE Referees and research administrators: barriers to scientific research? BMJ 1974;2:216–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Upadhyay V, Hammodat HM, Pease PW. Post circumcision meatal stenosis: 12 years’ experience. N Z Med J 1998;111(1060):57–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Patel H. The problem of routine circumcision. Can Med Assoc J 1966;95:576–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Van Howe RS. Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study. Br J Urol 1997;80:776–432.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Persad R, Sharma S, McTavish J, Imber C, Mouriquand PD. Clinical presentation and pathophysiology of meatal stenosis following circumcision. Br J Urol 1995;75:91–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Steg A, Allouch G. Stenose du meat et circoncision. [Meatal stenosis and circumcision] J Urol Nephrol Paris. 1979;85:727–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Berry CD Jr, Cross RR Jr. Urethral meatal caliber in circumcised and uncircumcised males. Am J Dis Child 1956:92:621.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Frank JD, Pocock RD, Stower MJ. Urethral strictures in childhood. Br J Urol 1988;62:590–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Frank JD. Circumcision, meatotomy and meatoplasty. In: Spitz L, Coran AG, eds. Pediatric Surgery. 5th ed. London: Chapman & Hall Medical. 1995:738–44.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Graves J. Pinpoint meatus: iatrogenic? Pediatrics 1968;41:1013.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  132. Griffiths DM, Atwell JD, Freeman W. A prospective survey of the indications and morbidity of circumcision in children. Eur Urol 1985;11:184–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Stenram A, Malmfors G, Okmian L. Circumcision for phimosis: a follow-up study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1986;20:89–92.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Stenram A, Malmfors G, Okmian L. Circumcision for phimosis—indications and results. Acta Paediatr Scand 1986;75:321–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Thompson AR. Stricture of the external urinary meatus. Lancet 1935;1:1373–7.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Mastin WM. Infantile circumcision a cause of contraction of the external urethral meatus. Ann Anatomy Surg 1881;4:123–8.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Van Howe RS. Meatal stenosis with bladder distention. Circumcision 1997;2(1).URG— http://weber.u.washington.edu/-gcd/CIRCUMCISION/v2nl.html.

  138. Wiswell TE. Circumcision—an update. Curr Probl Pediatr 1992;22:424–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  139. Wiswell TE. Circumcision questions [reply] Pediatrics 1994;94:407–8.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Wiswell TE. Reply to letter to the editor LE #061-95. Pediatrics 1995; Unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Gee W, Ansell JS. Neonatal circumcision: a ten-year overview: with comparison of the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell device. Pediatrics1976;58:824–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Wiswell TE. Do you favor... routine neonatal circumcision? Yes. Postgrad Med 1988;84:98,100,102 passim.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  143. Wiswell TE. Routine neonatal circumcision: a reappraisal. Am Fam Physician 1990;41:859–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Wiswell TE. Circumcision questions [reply] Pediatrics 1994;94:407–8.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:78.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1321–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. The American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on the Fetus and Newborn, Committee on Drugs, Section on Anesthesiology, Section on Surgery. Neonatal anesthesia. Pediatrics 1987;80:446.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Schoen EJ, Fischell AA. Pain in neonatal circumcision. Clin Pediutr Phila 1991;30:429–32.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. Snellman LW, Stang HJ. Prospective evalllation of complications of dorsal penile nerve block for neonatal circumcision. Pediatrics 1995;95:705–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  150. Lenhart JG, Lenhart NM, Reid A, Chong BK. Local anesthesia for circumcision: which technique is most effective. J Am Board Fam Pract 1997;10:13–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  151. Weiss GN, Weiss EB. A perspective on controversies over neonatal circumcision. Clin Pediatr Phila 1994;33:726–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  152. Weiss GN. Local anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. JAMA 1988;260:637–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  153. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:159.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:94.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Wiswell TE. Neonatal circumcision: a current appraisal. Focus & Opinions: Pediatrics 1995;1(2):93–9.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Wkwell TE. Circumcision circumspection. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1244–5.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Kronick DA. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA 1990, 263:1321–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Knoll E. The communities of scientists and journal peer review. JAMA 1990, 263:1330–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  159. Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. JAMA 1998;280:300–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  160. Garfunkel JM, Lawson EE, Hamrick HJ, Ulshen MH. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author’s evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts. JAMA 1990;263:1376–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  161. Weller AC. Editorial peer review in US medical journals. JAMA 1990;263:1344–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  162. Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution? Time to open up the black box of peer review. BMJ 1997;315:759–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. Jones R. Rights, wrongs and referees New Scientist 1974;61:758–9.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias JAMA 1990;263:1392–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  165. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263:1371–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  166. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280:234–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  167. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998:280:237–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  168. Justice AC, Cho MK, Wlnkler MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:240–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  169. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors’ subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998;280:229–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  170. Rennie D. Freedom and responsibility in medical publication: setting the balance right. JAMA 1998;280:300–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  171. Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution? Tie to open up the black box of peer review. BMJ 1997;315:759–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  172. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263:1371–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  173. Callaham ML, Baxt WG, Waeckerle JF, Wears RL. Reliability of editors’ subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts. JAMA 1998;280:229–31.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  174. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Smith R, Evans S. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  175. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:64.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:40.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:35.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Sharp DW. What can and should be done to reduce publicition bias? the perspective of an editor. JAMA 1990;263:1390–1.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  179. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 1990:263:1438–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  180. Knoll E. The communities of scientists and journal peer review. JAMA 1990;263:1330–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  181. Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME, Cornish JD, Hankins CT. Declining frequency of circumcision: implications for changes in the absolute incidence and male to female sex ratio of urinary tract infections in early infancy. Pediatrics 1987;79:338–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  182. Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics 1989;83:1011–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  183. Wlswell TE, Roscelli JD. Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants Pediatrics 1986:78:96–9.

    Google Scholar 

  184. To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W. A cohort study of male neonatal circumcision and subsequent risk of urinary tract infection. Paediatr Child Health 1997:2:55A [Abstract 95].

    Google Scholar 

  185. Altschul MS. The uti/circumcision relationship: a methodological factorization. Unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chycago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:150.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rded. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1996:150.

    Google Scholar 

  188. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1996:148.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Reviewer 2 for JAMA. reviewing Neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis [MS# JOC 71114]. August 1, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  190. Reviewer 2 for JAMA. reviewing Neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis [MS# JOC 71114]. August 1, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  191. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1996:149.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Van Howe RS. A rose by any other name.... Circumcision 1996;1(2).URL—http://weber.u.washington.edu/-gcd/CIRCUMCISION/vln2.html.

  193. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:151–2.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1996:157.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Reviewer 2 for JAMA. reviewing Neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis [MS# JOC 71114]. August 1, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Clarke M, Chalmers I. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA 1998;280:280–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  197. Reviewer 3 for J Pediatr. reviewing Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study [MS# 960048]. March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  198. A. Reviewer 2 for Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. reviewing Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study [MS# OA6563]. January 16, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  199. Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckmann AM, Hislop TG, Teh CZ, Ashley RL, Daring JR. History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Nutl Cancer Inst 1993;85:19–24.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  200. .Reviewer 3 for J Pediatr. reviewing Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study [MS# 960048]. March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  201. Reviewer 3 for J Pediatr. reviewing Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study [MS# 960048]. March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  202. Herzog LW, Alvarez SR. The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children. Am J Dis Child 1986;140:254–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  203. Fergusson DM, Lawton JM, Shannon FT. Neonatal circumcision and penile problems: an 8-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics 1988;81:537–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  204. Imamura E. Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan. Acta Paediatr Jpn 1997;39:403–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  205. A. Reviewer 2 for Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. reviewing Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study [MS# OA6563]. January 16, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  206. Imamura E. Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan. Acta Paediatr Jpn 1997;39;403–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  207. Reviewer 2 for JAMA. reviewing Neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis [MS# JOC 71114]. August 1, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  208. Reviewer 3 for J Pediutr. reviewing Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study [MS# 960048]. March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  209. Reviewer 3 for J Pediatr. reviewing Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study [MS# 960048]. March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  210. Reviewer 2 for JAMA. reviewing Neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis [MS# JOC 71114]. August 1, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  211. Van Howe RS. Circumcision and HIV-infection: meta-analysis and review of the medical literature. Int J STD AIDS. In press

    Google Scholar 

  212. Smith R. Peer review: reform or revolution? Tune to open up the black box of peer review. BMJ 1997;315:759–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  213. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:237–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  214. Stephenson J. Medical journals turn gaze inward to examine process of peer review. JAMA 1997;278:1389–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  215. Reviewer 3 for J Pediutr. reviewing Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study [MS# 960048]. March 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  216. Bissada NK, Morcos RR, el-Senoussi M. Post-circumcision carcinoma of the penis I. Clinical aspects. J Urol 1986;135:283–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  217. Reviewer 2 for JAMA. reviewing Neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis [MS# JOC 71114]. August 1, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  218. Horribin D. Anonymity of reviewers. Curdiovusc Res 1994;28:1141.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Reviewer 2 for JAMA. reviewing Neonatal circumcision: a cost-utility analysis [MS# JOC 71114]. August 1, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  220. Wiswell TE. Circumcision questions [reply] Pediatrics 1994;94:407–4.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Wiswell TE. Circumcision fiction. Dr. Wkwell replies [Document number 34337]. Pediatric News 1997; Unpublished.

    Google Scholar 

  222. Weiss GN, Weiss EB. A perspective on controversies over neonatal circumcision. Clin Pediatr Phila 1994;33:726–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  223. Schoen EJ. Circumcision—HIV, UTIs, and informed consent. The Screen Kaiser Permanente, Northern Culifornia Genetic Perinatal Newsletter August 1996;2(8):1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  224. Schoen EJ. Routine neonatal circumcision. Am Fam Physiciun 1990, 42:1522,1527,1530.

    Google Scholar 

  225. Schoen EJ. Neonatal circumcision and penile cancer Evidence that circumcision is protective is over-whelming. BMJ 1996;313:46.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  226. Horrobin DF. The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 1990;263:1438–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  227. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:67–8.

    Google Scholar 

  228. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:83.

    Google Scholar 

  229. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:7.

    Google Scholar 

  230. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:77.

    Google Scholar 

  231. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:157.

    Google Scholar 

  232. Einstein A. Autobiographical note. In: Schilpp PA, ed. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Evanston, Ill: 1949. Cited by: Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:45.

    Google Scholar 

  233. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:76.

    Google Scholar 

  234. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:112.

    Google Scholar 

  235. Kuhn TS. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge, Mass: 1957. Cited by: Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  236. Pate1 DA, Flaherty EG, Dunn J. Factors affecting the practice of circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1982;136:634–6.

    Google Scholar 

  237. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:152.

    Google Scholar 

  238. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:204.

    Google Scholar 

  239. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:90.

    Google Scholar 

  240. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996:144.

    Google Scholar 

  241. Ciesielski-Carlucci C, Milliken N, Cohen NH. Determinants of decision making for circumcision. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 1996;5:228–36.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  242. Schoen EJ. Is it time for Europe to reconsider newborn circumcision? [letter] Acta Paediatr Scand 1991;80:573–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  243. Bollgren I, Winberg J. Is it time for Europe to reconsider newborn circumcision? [reply] Acta Paediatr Scand 1991;80:575–7.

    Google Scholar 

  244. Schoen EJ. Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? Arch Dis Child 1997;77:258–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  245. Hitchcock R. Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? Commentary Arch Dis Child 1997:77:260.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Robert S. Van Howe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert Einstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Max Planck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Washington, Seanle, Washington

    George C. Denniston

  2. Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, England

    Frederick Mansfield Hodges

  3. National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, San Anselmo, California

    Marilyn Fayre Milos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Van Howe, R.S., Einstein, A., Planck, M. (1999). Peer-Review Bias Regarding Circumcision in American Medical Publishing. In: Denniston, G.C., Hodges, F.M., Milos, M.F. (eds) Male and Female Circumcision. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-39937-9_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-39937-9_32

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-306-46131-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-585-39937-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation