I’m not sure if any of you saw this review that came out in The Lancet, but it’s a pretty handy catalog of the benefits for women with circumcised partners. I posted the picture below to my Tumblr today.
If you’re not really familiar with statistics, I’ll provide my interpretation. Basically each horizontal line represents a study that compared STD rates in women with either circumcised or uncircumcised partners. The blue and red boxes and circles are the calculated odds ratios (or similar risk measurements), where numbers less than 1 are less dangerous (the women were less likely to have STDs), and numbers greater than one are more dangerous (the women were more likely to have STDs). The horizontal lines themselves represent the confidence interval (CI); a statistical tool for analyzing how likely the results were accurate. It is important to note that when the horizontal lines cross the vertical lines, the study is generally regarded as “stastically insignificant”, because it is within the boundaries of stastical likelihood that there is no big difference between groups. In addition, it’s impossible to assess how stastically likely the studies represented by boxes and circles without an associated horizontal line may be.
The vertical lines above the number 1 on left and right indicate the point where a study found that there was no difference between cut and uncut. Because all numbers presented in this figure are presented in regards to women with circumcised partners, if a study found that fewer women with circumcised partners had STDs, the boxes (and associated horizontal lines) are to the left of the 1. If the study found that more women with circumcised partners had STDs, the boxes are to the right of the 1. By my count, even if you eliminate all of the studies that don’t appear stastically significant, a quick tally of the score looked like Team Cut: 22, Team Hoodie: 1 to me. Sorry if my explanation of the stats wasn’t that great. Feel free to let me know if you’d like for me to try to explain it better.