English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We would like to draw to your attention to a serious error in the calculations used by Chang et al. (1) in their analysis of data that we published on the association between circumcision and genital dermatoses (2). In our study of 357 patients attending a Penile Dermatoses clinic we found that 27/39 patients with lichen planus were uncircumcised (69%; age adjusted OR 2.11). Chang et al. (1) took our number of 39 cases of lichen planus and incorrectly and without any rationale calculated that 12/82 cases were circumcised and 27/275 were uncircumcised. They have not correctly used our data in their meta-analysis and have mis-represented the results of our study. Chang et al. (1) concluded that their meta-analysis indicated a higher risk of male genital lichen planus in circumcised men. However, given this egregious flaw in their use of our data this conclusion cannot be justified and, unless a recalculation based on the correct figures proves otherwise, should be retracted and/or modified. Commentary on “Association of Circumcision Status with Genital Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”