User:TipPt/Relevant quotes

Relevant quotes from Jakew showing his lack of good faith

The Mastood (2005) study is correctly cited in the text, but wrongly in the table.

In the Summary of Research Findings table, this study is listed three times stating that the "Finding" was "no difference," or "favors circumcision." In fact the "finding" in all three should be the study conclusion "CONCLUSIONS: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."

Basically, the 61% "overall satisfaction" was considered low, given the disease state prior to circumcision.

Nowhere in the study do the authors state "no difference," or "favors circumcision." At best, someone is trying to interpret results.TipPt 16:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You can quibble about the wording, but Masood's study is represented fairly, I think. The table clearly discusses findings, not conclusions. Let's examine these.

Under 'erectile function', the table states "No difference No; p=0.40"

To quote Masood: "The mean total IIEF-5 score of the 84 patients at baseline was 22.41 ± 0.94 compared to 21.13 ± 3.17 after circumcision. The difference between pre- and post-circumcision patients was not statistically significant (p = 0.4)."

If you like, we can change it to 'no significant difference'.

Under 'penile sensation': "Favours circumcision in 38%, non-circumcision in 18% Yes; p=0.01"

Masood: "Only 18% of the patients complained about loss of/or altered penile sensation, whereas 38% found better sensation (p = 0.01)."

Under 'overall satisfaction': "Favours circumcision (61% satisfaction) Not stated"

Masood: "Sixty-one percent were satisfied with the circumcision (p = 0.04). ... Fourteen patients (17%) were not satisfied with the circumcision, but only 1 patient in this group had any obvious post-operative complications (bleeding)"Jakew 16:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You play a good game Jakew. But totally lost is the truth. Your table representation more than distracts from the intended study focus.

The Masood study is titled "Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly?"

The authors choose that title.

The authors conclude "The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."

Basically, the 61% "overall satisfaction" was considered low, given the penile disease state prior to circumcision.

The MAIN POINT of the authors in the study results is misrepresented in the table.TipPt 00:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a conclusion, not a finding. Jakew 09:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't said it before, but the fundamental problem with the table is that the stats are presented out of context. The end result is a reader that is clearly mislead.

The pervasive bias in the topic seems purposeful and unconscionable; so I say you act with bad faith. You control this topic.TipPt 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)