What numeric correlation coefficients between stretched/erect length and girth are reported in the original studies included in Veale et al.'s 2015 review?

1. What Veale et al. actually reported about length–girth correlations

Veale and colleagues synthesized up to 15,521 men’s measurements and constructed nomograms, and explicitly stated that somatometric correlations were inconsistent or weak; the review highlights that a consistent and stronger correlation existed between stretched/erect length and height (r approximately 0.2–0.6), but for length versus girth the review reports weak or inconsistent relationships without providing a single pooled numeric r for those pairings ^{[2] [1] [4]}. The review therefore functions as a qualitative synthesis for length–girth relationships rather than a numeric meta-analysis of correlation coefficients for that specific pairing ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the primary studies (as represented in Veale) show — qualitative not quantitative

Veale’s text cites several individual studies (for example, items referenced as [10,12,22,23] in the review) that “found a weak correlation with erect or stretched” measurements, indicating multiple primary datasets reported little or no strong association between stretched/erect length and girth; however, Veale’s paper does not extract and list each primary study’s Pearson r for length-versus-girth in the main synthesis, so readers of the review are told the relationships are weak but are not given a consolidated table of numeric r values for those pairings ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Where numeric correlations do appear in the broader literature cited by Veale

Veale’s review does present a specific numeric range for the correlation of length with height (r = 0.2–0.6) as the clearest anthropometric association in the pooled data, and Veale highlights that some individual studies report moderate correlations for other pairings (for example, Aslan et al. reported r = 0.61 for height vs stretched length), but explicit numeric Pearson r values for stretched/erect length versus girth are not summarized in Veale’s published nomogram article itself ^{[2] [3]}. Secondary papers and later large measurement efforts (cited alongside Veale) reiterate that length–girth correlations are weak or inconsistent, again typically described qualitatively ^[4].

4. Measurement issues that complicate numeric correlation reporting

Multiple authors point out measurement variability — interobserver and state-dependent differences — that muddy simple numeric correlations: a contemporaneous multi‑observer study reported that flaccid stretched length can underestimate erect length by a mean of 2.64 cm (≈21.4%) and girth by 2.27 cm (≈19.5%), and that interobserver variability is substantial ^{[5] [6]}. Veale flags that this heterogeneity and methodological variation across primary studies reduces the value of attempting to present a single, authoritative numeric correlation for stretched/erect length versus girth ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Conclusion and limitation of the evidence

The direct answer: Veale et al. report that correlations between stretched or erect length and girth are generally weak and inconsistent across included studies, but the review does not present a compiled list of numeric correlation coefficients (Pearson r) for length-versus-girth from each original study, so a reader cannot extract a definitive set of r values from Veale’s paper itself without returning to the individual primary studies cited by Veale ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If precise numeric r values are required, the only verifiable next step is to consult the original studies referenced in Veale et al. and extract their reported correlation coefficients directly, because the review summarizes the relationship qualitatively rather than enumerating those coefficients ^{[1] [2]}.