Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What did the 2015 Lancet systematic review by Veale et al. report as average erect penis length in centimeters?
Executive Summary
The 2015 systematic review by Veale et al. reported a weighted mean erect penis length of 13.12 cm (SD 1.66 cm) based on direct measurements from 692 men; this figure is the most-cited value from that study and appears across multiple secondary summaries [1] [2] [3]. Some later meta-analyses and overviews place the mean erect length in the same general band — roughly 13–14 cm — producing minor variation depending on included studies and weighting methods, but the Veale et al. estimate of 13.12 cm remains the specific value tied to that 2015 review [4] [5].
1. Why the Veale 2015 Number Is Frequently Quoted and What It Represents
Veale et al. published a systematic review in 2015 that pooled measured penis lengths from multiple studies to produce normative estimates; the review’s weighted mean erect length of 13.12 cm with a standard deviation of 1.66 cm reflects aggregated measured data rather than self-reports, and the sample underlying the erect-length estimate comprised 692 men in the contributing studies [2] [3]. This numeric result is reported consistently in clinical summaries and reference compilations because the study applied systematic literature-search methods and presented nomograms intended for clinical reference. The Veale review is frequently cited in later overviews and media pieces as an authoritative baseline, while subsequent analyses that include additional data sets or different inclusion criteria sometimes report slightly different central estimates, usually within the 13–14 cm range [4] [5]. The emphasis on measured (not self-reported) values is important because it reduces upward bias found in self-reported studies, thereby increasing confidence in the 13.12 cm figure as a clinical benchmark [6].
2. Confusion Over Publication Venue and How That Affects Citations
Some secondary sources and casual citations have misattributed Veale et al.’s 2015 review to other high-profile journals; the analysis notes a mislabeling—some references call it a Lancet review, but the original paper was published in BJU International [1]. This kind of misattribution does not change the numerical result, but it does affect discoverability and the chain of citation: when a high-prestige venue is named incorrectly, readers can be misled about editorial context and peer-review framing. The repeated propagation of an incorrect journal name in derivative summaries can create an illusion of additional external validation or visibility, which is why primary-source verification matters. The factual core—13.12 cm mean erect length—is unaffected by the venue confusion, yet responsible reporting should link the numeric claim directly back to the Veale 2015 paper as published in BJU International [1] [3].
3. How Other Reviews and Meta-Analyses Compare: Slight Differences, Same Neighborhood
Subsequent systematic reviews and a larger meta-analysis report mean erect lengths that cluster around the same interval: for example, one broader meta-analysis cited in the collated analyses reported a mean erect length of 13.84 cm, demonstrating how sampling, inclusion criteria, and statistical weighting produce modest shifts [4]. The important takeaway is that independent syntheses converge on a 13–14 cm average erect length rather than producing wildly divergent results. Differences between 13.12 cm and 13.84 cm arise from varying sample sizes, geographic composition of included studies, whether studies measured under standardized conditions, and whether measurements were self-reported or clinician-measured. These methodological choices explain the narrow spread of estimates and support the conclusion that Veale’s 13.12 cm sits comfortably within the empiric consensus [4] [5].
4. Sample Size, Variability, and Clinical Interpretation
Veale et al.’s reported standard deviation of 1.66 cm around the 13.12 cm mean signals that individual variation is substantial relative to the mean; clinicians and readers should interpret the mean as a population central tendency, not a prescriptive norm for individuals. The erect-length estimate in Veale rests on 692 measured men—a meaningful but not exhaustive sample—which means population-level conclusions are robust for broad reference but do not eliminate regional or demographic differences that larger pooled analyses may capture [2] [3]. The presence of multiple analyses finding similar central tendencies increases confidence that the 13.12 cm estimate is a valid clinical reference point, while reminding readers that individual values will often fall above or below that average within the reported standard deviation [6].
5. Final Fact Check and How to Cite the Finding Responsibly
The factually supported answer to the original question is: Veale et al. [7] reported an average erect penis length of 13.12 cm (SD 1.66 cm) based on pooled, measured data from 692 men [2] [3]. When citing this figure, use the Veale 2015 paper as the primary source and note that later syntheses place the population mean in the 13–14 cm range, which reflects methodological variation rather than a substantive contradiction [4] [5]. Responsible reporting should avoid misattributing the study to other journals and should clarify whether cited estimates derive from measured or self-reported data, because that distinction materially influences the trustworthiness of the numeric claims [1] [6].