Your fact-checks will appear here
Database
Large, peer‑reviewed, measured studies of penile dimensions exist but are regionally focused; the largest systematic syntheses pool dozens of smaller studies—one recent systematic review/meta‑analysis...
Large, peer‑reviewed efforts exist but they cluster into two types: systematic reviews/meta‑analyses that pool clinician‑measured studies across countries and many smaller, regional clinician‑measured...
A practical shortlist of clinical sources patients should consult to evaluate claims about new includes high-quality and network meta-analyses, catalogued in major databases, from professional societi...
Existing global meta-analyses of penile size pool data from thousands to tens of thousands of men and usually restrict included studies to measurements taken by health professionals rather than self‑r...
Large, peer‑reviewed, population‑level efforts on penile size are mainly systematic reviews and meta‑analyses that pool many smaller studies; the best‑cited synthesis (Veale et al. 2015 and later meta...
The most-cited, rigorously pooled global estimates come from systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include clinician‑measured data rather than self‑reports: a 2024–25 systematic review by Mostafae...
Three major meta-analyses published or posted between 2015 and 2025 provided broad, cross‑country measurements of adult penile length and/or girth: "Worldwide Temporal Trends in Penile Length" (meta‑a...
Large, peer‑reviewed syntheses — notably a 2024–25 systematic review and meta‑analysis that pooled clinical measurements and Veale’s earlier work — are the closest thing to “most reliable” data: the U...
Large, systematic syntheses — notably a 2024 meta‑analysis of Chinese studies and a 2025 WHO‑region meta‑analysis — are the most reliable efforts to estimate average penile dimensions because they poo...