Evaluating Safety of Ring Versus Clamp Devices in Neonatal Circumcision: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While device-based circumcision is considered non-inferior to traditional dissection, there is no consensus on the efficacy and safety of ring devices in comparison with clamp devices. We aimed to compare the safety outcomes of ring-based versus clamp-based circumcision techniques in neonates. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched following the Cochrane collaboration (PRISMA guidelines), without language restrictions, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Adverse events, bleeding events, infection events, and procedure time were extracted and analyzed from the selected studies. RESULTS: From 1661 citations, seven trials were included, encompassing 3390 patients. These studies compared ring-based to clamp-based circumcision devices in neonates. No significant difference was found in overall adverse events between the two groups. However, ring devices showed significantly fewer bleeding events compared to clamp devices. Infection events and procedure time were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both ring and clamp devices have similar safety profiles, with ring devices potentially offering a reduced risk of bleeding. A comprehensive understanding of ring-specific complications and cosmetic outcomes is necessary for a more complete evaluation of these circumcision techniques. Our analysis is limited from a lack of detailed examination of ring-specific complications and their impact on cosmetic results. The included studies varied in quality, and some exhibited a risk of bias. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV Treatment Study.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".