Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 209

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Circumcision and Genital Dermatoses

Mallon, Eleanor, Hawkins, David, Dinneen, Michael, Francis, Nicholas, Fearfield, Louise, Newson, Roger, Bunker, Christopher·2000·Archives of Dermatology

Abstract

CONTEXT: It is well recognized that the presence of a foreskin predisposes to penile carcinoma and sexually transmitted infections. We have investigated the relationship between the presence or absence of the foreskin and penile dermatoses. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an association between circumcision and penile dermatoses. DESIGN: A retrospective case control study of patients attending the department of dermatology with genital skin conditions. SUBJECTS: The study population consisted of 357 male patients referred for diagnosis and management of genital skin disease. The control population consisted of 305 male patients without genital skin disease attending the general dermatology clinics over a 4-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship between circumcision and the presence or absence of skin disease involving the penis was investigated. The rate of circumcision in the general male dermatology population was determined. RESULTS: The most common diagnoses were psoriasis (n = 94), penile infections (n = 58), lichen sclerosus (n = 52), lichen planus (n = 39), seborrheic dermatitis (n = 29), and Zoon balanitis (n = 27). Less common diagnoses included squamous cell carcinoma (n = 4), bowenoid papulosis (n = 3), and Bowen disease (n = 3). The age-adjusted odds ratio for all penile skin diseases associated with presence of the foreskin was 3.24 (95% confidence interval, 2.26-4.64). All patients with Zoon balanitis, bowenoid papulosis, and nonspecific balanoposthitis were uncircumcised. Lichen sclerosus was diagnosed in only 1 circumcised patient. Most patients with psoriasis, lichen planus, and seborrheic eczema (72%, 69%, and 72%, respectively) were uncircumcised at presentation. The majority of men with penile infections (84%) were uncircumcised. CONCLUSIONS: Most cases of inflammatory dermatoses were diagnosed in uncircumcised men, suggesting that circumcision protects against inflammatory dermatoses. The presence of the foreskin may promote inflammation by a köebnerization phenomenon, or the presence of infectious agents, as yet unidentified, may induce inflammation. The data suggest that circumcision prevents or protects against common infective penile dermatoses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archderm.136.3.350

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 209

Metadata

Authors
Mallon, E., Hawkins, D., Dinneen, M., Francis, N., Fearfield, L., Newson, R., & Bunker, C.
Venue
Archives of Dermatology
Published
2000-03-01
Volume
136
Issue
3
Pages
350-4
ISSN
0003-987X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995154403
Cited by
209
References
0
FWCI
7.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Circumcision and Genital Dermatoses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archderm.136.3.350
The paper
Mallon, E., Hawkins, D., Dinneen, M., Francis, N., Fearfield, L., Newson, R., & Bunker, C. (2000). Circumcision and Genital Dermatoses. Archives of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.136.3.350

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.