Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies

D Singh-Grewal, J Macdessi, J Craig, D Singh-Grewal, J Macdessi, J Craig

Abstract

Objective: To undertake a meta-analysis of published data on the effect of circumcision on the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) in boys.

Data sources: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the frequency of UTI in circumcised and uncircumcised boys were identified from the Cochrane controlled trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of retrieved articles, and contact with known investigators.

Methods: Two of the authors independently assessed study quality using the guidelines provided by the MOOSE statement for quality of observational studies. A random effects model was used to estimate a summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: Data on 402,908 children were identified from 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies, and seven case-control studies). Circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI (OR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.20; p<0.001) with the same odds ratio (0.13) for all three types of study design.

Conclusions: Circumcision reduces the risk of UTI. Given a risk in normal boys of about 1%, the number-needed-to-treat to prevent one UTI is 111. In boys with recurrent UTI or high grade vesicoureteric reflux, the risk of UTI recurrence is 10% and 30% and the numbers-needed-to-treat are 11 and 4, respectively. Haemorrhage and infection are the commonest complications of circumcision, occurring at rate of about 2%. Assuming equal utility of benefits and harms, net clinical benefit is likely only in boys at high risk of UTI.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart outlining the study selection process for the effect of circumcision on urinary tract infection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of circumcision on urinary tract infection in male subjects.

References

    1. Pediatr Nephrol. 2001 Dec;16(12):1129-34
    1. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002 Jan;156(1):44-54
    1. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
    1. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl. 1974;(252):1-20
    1. Urol Clin North Am. 1983 Aug;10(3):543-9
    1. Eur Urol. 1985;11(3):184-7
    1. Pediatrics. 1987 Mar;79(3):338-42
    1. Pediatrics. 1987 Apr;79(4):649-50
    1. J Pediatr. 1988 Sep;113(3):442-6
    1. Am J Dis Child. 1989 Mar;143(3):348-50
    1. Pediatrics. 1990 Sep;86(3):363-7
    1. Arch Dis Child. 1991 Feb;66(2):232-4
    1. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 1992 Oct;49(10):652-8
    1. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1993 Mar;32(3):130-4
    1. Br J Surg. 1993 Oct;80(10):1231-6
    1. Am J Public Health. 1994 Feb;84(2):197-201
    1. J Pediatr. 1996 Jan;128(1):23-7
    1. JAMA. 1996 Aug 28;276(8):637-9
    1. J Paediatr Child Health. 1996 Aug;32(4):285-9
    1. Lancet. 1998 Dec 5;352(9143):1813-6
    1. JAMA. 1999 May 26;281(20):1900-5
    1. N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 11;346(15):1105-12
    1. JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
    1. Pediatrics. 2000 Apr;105(4 Pt 1):789-93
    1. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999 Oct;35(5):454-9
    1. CA Cancer J Clin. 1991 Sep-Oct;41(5):306-9
    1. JAMA. 1992 Feb 5;267(5):679-81
    1. J Urol. 1992 Aug;148(2 Pt 2):733-6; discussion 737-8

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다