Write the Pediatric Journal that published the NZ Study

[13Sandals]

Okay - here's the title of the article in the 'Journal'
David M. Fergusson, Joseph M. Boden, and L. John Horwood
Circumcision Status and Risk of Sexually Transmitted Infection in Young Adult Males: An Analysis of a Longitudinal Birth Cohort
Pediatrics, Nov 2006; 118: 1971 - 1977.

I couldn't see the whole thing at their site because there is a cost - but I am certain this is the correct one. David M. Fergusson is the head of the CHristchurch Developmental blah, blah, blah in New Zealand.

Here is the link to contact the journal:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/feedback

I'm writing now and going to focus on how they decided this 'study deserved publication with so few in the population sample and allowing the data to be gleaned from particpant questionnaires.

UPdate: Actually, I just noticed this is the official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Could it be the journal published this in order to officially discredit it and the media just picked up on the most sensational slant? The media should be saying - "AAP Rejects Study Showing Circumcision reduces STDs", instead of burying their refusal of it in the middle of the article.

[Nathan1097]

Do you have direct link to the article?

[SleeplessMommy]

"self-reported sexually transmitted infection"

self-reported? why not TEST for STDs like chlamidia, herpes, syphilys, etc. Wont TESTING be more accurate? Many of these can be asymptomatic in men.

: : :

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/118/5/1971
(abstract only)

[phatchristy]

Hmm...what I think is weird, why is the AAP publishing an NZ study in their journal?

And, good point previous poster. What if having an intact penis just made you more symptomatic? The circ'd men could just be carriers and not actually show symptoms.:

[13Sandals]

Originally Posted by Nathan1097

Do you have direct link to the article?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...t=circumcision

but as I said, if you aren't a subscriber, you can't access it. But this is the same study referenced in the MSNbc article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/

and USAToday and Yahoo Now articles that have all been posted to this forum. I just wanted to find out where this had been published in the first place, before the news orgs picked it up.

I wrote and they promised an answer in less than 2 days.

Again, the AAP Journal rejected the findings. Why would they publish this obviously flawed study in the first place - and why is the media headlining this as if there is a definite medical benefit - and then burying the AAP conclusion in two lines in the middle of the article?

adn phatchristy, exactly! a few undetected cases of STD in the circumcised group (asymptomatic STD) would have seriously altered the 'study' results.

[ccohenou]

What do you mean that they rejected the findings? It's published, no?

Personally, I can't see how routine amputation of newborn body parts would be justified by a possible reduction in overwhelmingly curable disease. It only makes sense if you have the preexisting belief that the body part is not worth having.

I don't think it's unusual at all for a non-US study to be published in a US journal.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by 13Sandals

Again, the AAP Journal rejected the findings. Why would they publish this obviously flawed study in the first place - and why is the media headlining this as if there is a definite medical benefit - and then burying the AAP conclusion in two lines in the middle of the article?

adn phatchristy, exactly! a few undetected cases of STD in the circumcised group (asymptomatic STD) would have seriously altered the 'study' results.

So, they rejected the findings, yet all the news media published it like it was the final word. The media here in the US is just like that other thread discussed..."for shock and entertainment." Sigh...anything to get their $$$. :

[Mountaingirl3]

There weren't even any findings!

Here were the (self-reported) total numbers of STDs in the study:

Chlamydia 22
Genital warts 13
Genital herpes 4
Gonorrhea 2
Non-specific urethral infection 5
Genital herpes plus warts 1
Anything and everything else 0

The assosiations between circ status and reported Chlamydia (which is curable, btw) "were not statistically significant due to the small number of cases of Chlamydia". That is a direct quote from the study.

Now, if there were not enough Chlamydia cases to show anything, and there were even fewer cases or no cases of everything else, how on earth is the conclusion of circ prevents STD possible?

[buckeyedoc]

Where did the AAP reject the findings? I just read the whole article (and it's crap). Is there a separate editorial about it?

[13Sandals]

Originally Posted by buckeyedoc

Where did the AAP reject the findings? I just read the whole article (and it's crap). Is there a separate editorial about it?

The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision.

[13Sandals]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

What do you mean that they rejected the findings? It's published, no?

This was one of my questions to them - why would they even publish it in the first place if there were going on to conclude that the evidence was "complex and conflicting"...

and every article I've seen mentions the AAP's take on the article, its just buried in the article and under a blaring headline proclaiming Circing decreases STDs

[ccohenou]

I think that "complex and conflicting" statement comes from an earlier recommendation (or non-recommendation) by the AAP, and wasn't a commentary on this particular study.

[13Sandals]

I think you may be right. that is seriously depressing. i'm still waiting on a response as to how 'self-reported' prescence of STDs' qualifies as a study..

[buckeyedoc]

Originally Posted by 13Sandals

I think you may be right. that is seriously depressing. i'm still waiting on a response as to how 'self-reported' prescence of STDs' qualifies as a study..

... and self-reported (or parent-reported) circumcision status, which was found to be incorrect reasonably often in one of the African studies.