What were the sizes by ethnicity in the wessells penis study

1. What Wessells et al. measured — and what the reviews say

Wessells, Lue, and McAninch ^[1] is repeatedly cited as an investigator-measured dataset used in later meta-analyses and reviews; for example, it is named among four measured studies combined to give a pooled mean erect length of 5.36 inches in a social‑desirability/self‑report paper ^[2]. Systematic reviews that list Wessells as a source use it to help estimate overall means and temporal trends, but those same reviews emphasize heterogeneous methods across studies and limited reporting on ethnicity ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Do those sources report sizes by ethnicity for Wessells?

The search results you provided do not contain a copy of Wessells et al. with an ethnicity-stratified table, nor do the systematic reviews excerpted reproduce a Wessells-specific breakdown by ethnic group ^{[2] [3] [4]}. Therefore: available sources do not mention a Wessells study table listing penis sizes by ethnicity ^{[2] [3]}.

3. What broader reviews report about ethnicity and regional differences

Larger meta-analyses and systematic reviews in your set discuss geographic or regional variation (WHO regions, country groupings) and sometimes ethnicity coded from primary samples; these reviews find measurable regional differences but stress methodological caveats — measurement technique, sample selection, age ranges, and mixing geography with ethnicity all limit conclusions ^{[4] [5]}. For example, a WHO-region meta-analysis reports regional variation but warns that intermixing geography and ethnicity descriptors and inconsistent measurement methods undermine simple racial interpretations ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Methodological reasons why an ethnicity breakdown is often missing or unreliable

Multiple sources highlight why ethnicity-specific claims are fragile: many studies rely on self-report, have small or clinic-based samples, use different measurement protocols (stretched vs erect vs flaccid), and often do not standardize or report participant race/ethnicity in a comparable way ^{[4] [6]}. Critics argue that when you correct for these biases, ethnic differences shrink or disappear, and that some historical claims (e.g., Rushton) have been debunked or are methodologically flawed ^{[6] [7]}.

5. Competing perspectives in the literature

Some analyses and compilations conclude there are statistically detectable differences across regions or ethnic groupings (for example, global surveys and meta-analyses that present regional averages) ^{[4] [5]}. Conversely, critical overviews and commentaries emphasize the low magnitude of differences, pervasive biases, and the potential for racist misuse of findings; they argue legitimate research shows no meaningful, consistent ethnic variation once methodology is corrected ^{[6] [4]}. Both perspectives are present in the search results you supplied.

6. What you can do next to find Wessells’ ethnicity data

To confirm whether Wessells et al. reported ethnicity-stratified sizes, consult the original 1996 Journal of Urology article (Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW. Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation) directly; the reviews name it but the excerpts here don’t reproduce ethnicity tables ^{[2] [3]}. If the goal is robust, ethnicity-specific estimates, prioritize large, clinician-measured datasets or contemporary meta-analyses that explicitly report race/ethnicity and standardize measurement methods ^{[5] [4]}.

Limitations and transparency: This reply relies only on the search results you provided; those results cite Wessells as a measured source but do not include an ethnicity-by-size table from that paper, so I cannot cite figures Wessells may or may not have published ^{[2] [3]}.