Updates are available Correction dated 2023-07-27
Click to view Correction: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00741-1
-
Authors
Hammond, Tim http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2082-9476
Sardi, Lauren M. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4143-3657
Jellison, William A.
McAllister, Ryan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5338-7611
Snyder, Ben
Fahmy, Mohamed A. B. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-1742
- License Information
-
More Information
Article History
Received: 18 October 2022
Revised: 21 February 2023
Accepted: 27 February 2023
First Online: 30 March 2023
Change Date: 27 July 2023
Change Type: Correction
Change Details: A Correction to this paper has been published:
Change Details: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00741-1
Competing interests
: TH is the author of two related surveys of circumcision sufferers and is co-founder of the nonprofit charity the National Organization of Restoring Men. TH knew the owners of two restoration device companies and asked for assistance to promote this survey to past customers. Anonymized email lists were supplied to TH at no charge and no promotional promises were made to the companies. LMS has written numerous articles about ethical and human rights implications of circumcision; WAJ has performed statistical analyses and published papers about circumcision; RM appeared in documentaries and videos and has written about the ethics and effects of circumcision; BS appeared in a circumcision documentary for US parents; MABF has published medical textbooks on normal and abnormal prepuce and the short- and long-term physical effects of penile circumcision. The non-profit organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision underwrote the subscription cost (<$300) of the online survey software used in this research.
: This study received Institutional Review Board approval (Protocol #04421) from Quinnipiac University in Hamden, CT, USA, and followed all ethical standards to ensure proper protection of participants and their data.
