Dear Editor,
We read with much interest, the recent article by Ketabchi et al., published online in your journal (1); however, at the same time we would like to make the following comments, clarification to which would benefit the general readers of the journal.
First, the authors initially state that that they “describe the findings of 120 cases referred for late complications after a circumcision” yet the subsequent results show findings of only 56 patients. Therefore, the actual number of participants in the study is not clear.
Second, the “patients were divided to four groups of neonates, infants, children, and adolescents” yet the definition/criteria for this categorization is not mentioned. This is important for comparing results with similar studies (2).
Third, the authors also did not specify the definitions used for terminologies, such excessive foreskin removal/insufficient foreskin removal, abnormal healing, etc. (3). In this respect, it made us wonder as to how they had diagnosed meatal stenosis in infants, as it is usually diagnosed at the age of toilet training.
