Safety of task-shifting for male medical circumcision
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Task-shifting for male medical circumcision is proposed as a strategy to overcome the lack of surgeons and doctors in high HIV prevalence settings. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to review the safety of task-shifting for circumcision in Africa. METHODS: We searched online databases and conference websites up to July 2011 without language restriction for studies reporting outcomes of task-shifting for circumcision in Africa. Information was extracted independently and in duplicate on study characteristics, quality, and outcome data. Case reports and case series were excluded. RESULTS: Ten studies met our inclusion criteria, providing outcome data on 25119 circumcisions. The proportion of adverse events ranged from 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.02%] to 37.36% (95% CI 27.54-47.72%), with an overall pooled proportion of 2.31% (95% CI 1.46-3.16%; τ = 1.21; P < 0.001). Two studies reported outcomes separately for both doctors and non-physicians; there was no difference in the risk of adverse events by provider (pooled relative risk 1.18; 95% CI 0.78-1.78). The frequency of excessive bleeding ranged from 0.30 (0.09-0.65%) to 24.71% (16.27-34.26%) with an overall pooled prevalence of 0.55% (95% CI 0.13-0.97%). Infection occurred in 0.30 (0.14-1.47%) to 1.85% (0.07-5.96%) of cases, with an overall pooled proportion of 0.88% (95% CI 0.29-1.47%). All adverse events were reported to be non-severe. CONCLUSION: Task-shifting of male medical circumcision to non-physician clinicians can be done safely, with reported rates of adverse events similar to doctors and specialists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it