Association of Circumcision Status with Genital Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Commentary on “Association of Circumcision Status with Genital Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”

“…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.…”

“…We are grateful for the valuable comments from Mallon and Bunker on our article ( 1 ). The major concern is the method for original data extraction from study by Mallon et al ( 2 ) for our meta-analysis.…”