This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John E. Pipas, MD
Syracuse, NY

JAMA. 1997;278(3):202.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I read with great anticipation the article on circumcision in the United States,¹ after hearing the press release about this article on the news. However, I not only was sorely disappointed in the results and conclusions in this study, but must say that I have never read an article that had so many generalities, such as "slight tendency," "slightly less likely," "may have," "it seems unlikely," "results escape easy interpretation," "cast doubt," and "may reflect attitudes." I found the article to be highly unscientific and probably more suitable for publication in a journalof sociology or perhaps psychology than in a medical journal.

Perhaps the most obvious example was a comment by the authors that "Results may also have been affected by the possibility that some respondents did not know whether they had been circumcised." I rest my case. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?