Prevalence of gynecomastia studies

[hypo]

Prevalence of gynecomastia studies.

It should be noted that the people who are listed as having gynecomastia in these studies have had it clinically diagnosed.  Criteria does differ, which basically means the definition of what is termed 'medically concerning gynecomastia' differs depending upon that interpretation. The criteria is given.

*measurements indictae the size of the subareola mass as determined on examination.  


Pubertal gynecomastia Studies

Nydick et al.  Group studied- Boy scouts.  
Criteria used* 0.5cm.  Age of subjects 10-16 number studies 1865. With gynecomastia 722- 38%.

Neyzi et al.  Group studied- Turkish schoolboys.
Criteria used* firm subareolar tissue.  Age of subjects 9-17.  Number studied 993.  With gynecomastia 70- 7%.

Lee.  Group studied- U.S Schoolboys.  
Criteria used* firm subareola disk.  Age of subjects pubertal boys.  Number studied 29.  With gynecomastia 20- 69%.

Fara et al.  Group studied- Italian Schoolboys.
Criteria used* 0.5cm.  11-14.  Number studied 681.  With gynecomastia 228- 33%  

Harlan et al.  Group studied- U.S youths.
Criteria used* 1cm  Age of subjects 12-17.  Number studied 3522.  With gynecomastia 147- 4%.

Moore et al.  Group studied- normal Swiss volunteers.
Criteria used* 0.5cm.  Age of subjects 8.5-17.5.  Number studied 135.  With gynecomastia 30- 22%.

Biro et al.  Group studied- U.S schoolboys
Criteria used* palpable glandular tissue.  Age of subjects 10-15.  Number studied 377.  With gynecomastia 183- 49%.

Adult gynecomastia studies

Williams Group studied Autopsy.
Criteria used* histological.  Age of subjects- all adults
Number studied 447.  With gynecomastia 178- 40%

Nuttall.  Group studied U.S military personnel.  
Criteria used* 2cm.  Age of subjects 17-58.  Number studied 306.  With gynecomastia 108- 36%.

Ley et al.  Group studied- contraceptive-trial volunteers
Criteria used* 2cm.  Age of subjects 19-39.  Number studied 63.  With gynecomastia 22- 35%.

Carlson.  Group studied- veterens.  
Criteria used not stated.  Age of subjects adults.  Number studied 100.  With gynecomastia 32- 32%.

Andersen and Gram.  Group studied- unselected autopsies.  Criteria used histological.  Age of subjects adults.  Number of subjects 100.  With gynecomastia 55- 55%.

Niewoehner and Nuttall.  Group studied- veterens.  
Criteria used 2cm.  Age of subjects 27-92.  Number studied 214.  With gynecomastia 140- 65%

[Paa_Paw]

Hypo, Thanks for passing that information along.

Even allowing for the differing criteria and the fact that the studies were of differing national and/or ethnic groups; those results show a wide range of variation.  All of which comes back to the question of just how objective the people were who conducted the various studies.

I suspect that most studies are at least partially subjective in that the investigators went looking for the evidence that supported their previously held beliefs.  

Conversely, at least part of the studies probably were essentially objective or not base on pre-concieved opinions.  

The problem is, who is right?  The truth is there somewhere, how to identify it is yet another matter.

[hypo]

They sat there is nothing as fallacious as facts only figures.  

The idea that an author can make numbers do what they want them to and read in a given way is very true.  

This is why criteria selection (definition of what is gynecomastia) and groups studied and numbers of people studied are important if the medical community is to understand the prevalence of this condition and understand it better.

Something that is important when assessing its associations with other conditions.  

At the moment medical knowledge states that;

10% of all gynecomastia sufferers have hypogonadism, that 8% of all gynecomastia sufferers has a liver problem, that overall underlying conditions account for 25% of all gynecomastia sufferers, that 40% of all male breast cancers (only 1% of all male cancers) stems from having gynecomastia that between 15 and 7% of all testicular cancer sufferers have gynecomastia..  

All of this knowledge/these statements are up for grabs.  If we understand the true picture better we may find that these associations are weaker or disturbingly that they are stronger.  This is very important and goes way beyond the cosmetics of the condition.