This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jakew (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 17 June 2009 (FGC/Stallings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:57, 17 June 2009 by Jakew (talk | contribs) (FGC/Stallings)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)HIV/AIDS topics
First of all, beautefully done, Jakew. To me, what you just did is magic! I added a See Also section. I hope this time there are no issues with it? Anyway, there is a HIV/AIDS topics template(I think?) with many links to HIV/AIDS related articles. I think this article belongs with them but am not sure, and have no clue how to make it happen in any case. --Nakerlund (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nakerlund. The template is {{AIDS}}. It would be straightforward to include it, but I'm not sure whether this article should be included in the template. I've requested input from other editors at Talk:HIV#Input requested. Jakew (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
FGC/Stallings
This edit, which introduces a conference presentation by Stallings, is problematic, for several reasons.
First, every source in this article discusses the relationship between penile circumcision (that is, the removal of the penile foreskin) and HIV. Stallings' paper, in contrast, is about female genital cutting. Thus, there is no logical reason for including this material here.
Second, the edit appears to be very poorly thought out. For example, the material was placed in the section entitled "Langerhans cells and HIV transmission", in spite of the material having no obvious connection with that subject.
Third, the edit is misleading. For example, it begins "Stallings (2005) cited 3 prior studies which showed a correlation between female circumcision and a lower risk of HIV...". The words "showed a correlation" imply that a statistically significant correlation was observed. Slide 11 of Stallings' presentation, however, shows the opposite to be true: the 95% confidence intervals for the odds ratios for all three studies include 1.0, so in fact it would be more accurate to say "...showing no correlation...". Further, the conclusions are quoted somewhat selectively. For example, the following conclusion (from slide 38) seems rather important: "As no biological mechanism seems plausible, we conclude that it is due to irreducible confounding."
For these reasons, I'm reverting the change. Jakew (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)