Circumcision Status and Risk of HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Men Who Have Sex With Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have demonstrated that male circumcision reduces men's risk of contracting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection during heterosexual intercourse. Less is known about whether male circumcision provides protection against HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM). OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively summarize the strength of the association between male circumcision and HIV infection and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) across observational studies of MSM. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive search of databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Sociofile, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and correspondence with researchers, to find published articles, conference proceedings, and unpublished reports through February 2008. STUDY SELECTION: Of 18 studies that quantitatively examined the association between male circumcision and HIV/STI among MSM, 15 (83%) met the selection criteria for the meta-analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent abstraction was conducted by pairs of reviewers using a standardized abstraction form. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 53,567 MSM participants (52% circumcised) were included in the meta-analysis. The odds of being HIV-positive were not significantly lower among MSM who were circumcised than uncircumcised (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.11; number of independent effect sizes [k]=15) [corrected].). Higher study quality was associated with a reduced odds of HIV infection among circumcised MSM (beta, -0.415; P = .01). Among MSM who primarily engaged in insertive anal sex, the association between male circumcision and HIV was protective but not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-2.28; k=4) [corrected].Male circumcision had a protective association with HIV in studies of MSM conducted before the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.69; k = 3).Neither the association between male circumcision and other STIs (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.15; k=8) nor its relationship with study quality was statistically significant (beta, 0.265; P=.47) [corrected]. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses of available observational studies of MSM revealed insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STIs. However, the comparable protective effect of male circumcision in MSM studies conducted before the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy, as in the recent male circumcision trials of heterosexual African men, supports further investigation of male circumcision for HIV prevention among MSM.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".