Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Mar 7;50(5):291-301.
doi: 10.5152/tud.2025.24038.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Penis Length and Circumference According to WHO Regions: Who has the Biggest One?

Hadi Mostafaei  1   2 , Keiichiro Mori  1   3 , Satoshi Katayama  1   4 , Fahad Quhal  1   5 , Benjamin Pradere  1 , Takafumi Yanagisawa  1   3 , Ekaterina Laukhtina  1   6 , Frederik König  1   7 , Reza Sari Motlagh  1   8 , Pawel Rajwa  1   9 , Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr  2   10 , Sakineh Hajebrahimi  2 , Shahrokh F Shariat  1   2   6   11   12   13   14   15
Affiliations
Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Penis Length and Circumference According to WHO Regions: Who has the Biggest One?

Hadi Mostafaei et al. Urol Res Pract. .

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of stretched, erect, and flaccid penis length as well as circumference according to geographic WHO regions.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published until February 2024. Studies in which a healthcare professional evaluated the penis size were considered eligible. After assessing the risk of bias, a systematic review and meta-analyses were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement, and the outcomes were grouped based on the WHO regions.

Results: A total of 33 studies comprising 36 883 patients were included. The risk of bias in the included studies was moderate/low. A comprehensive systematic review was done and meta-analyses performed for flaccid length [n = 28 201, mean (SE) 9.22 (0.24) cm], stretched length [n = 20 814, mean (SE) 12.84 (0.32) cm], erect length [n = 5669, mean (SE) 13.84 (0.94) cm], flaccid circumference [n = 30 117, mean (SE) 9.10 (0.12) cm], and erect circumference [n = 5168, mean (SE) 11.91 (0.18) cm]. The mean length of the stretched penis was largest in Americans [14.47 (0.90) cm]. The mean length of the flaccid penis was the largest in the Americas [10.98 (0.064) cm]. The mean flaccid penile circumference was largest in Americans [n = 29 714, mean (SE) 10.00 (0.04) cm].

Conclusions: Penis sizes vary across WHO regions, suggesting the need to adjust standards according to geography to better understand councilmen and their partners. These data provide a framework for discussing body image expectations and therapeutic strategies in this sensitive and emotional subject matter.

Keywords: Penis; circumference; length; world health organization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram. Abbreviation: PRISMA, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
The mean length of stretched penis in different WHO regions. Abbreviation: WHO, World Health Organization.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
The mean length of flaccid penis in different WHO regions. Abbreviation: WHO, World Health Organization.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
The mean flaccid penile circumference in different WHO regions. Abbreviation: WHO, World Health Organization.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
The world map of the size of the penis.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
WHO regions. Abbreviation: WHO, World Health Organization.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Lever J, Frederick DA, Peplau LA. Does size matter? Men’s and women’s views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychol Men Masculinity. 2006;7(3):129 143. (10.1037/1524-9220.7.3.129) - DOI
    1. Marra G, Drury A, Tran L, Veale D, Muir GH. Systematic review of surgical and nonsurgical interventions in normal men complaining of small penis size. Sex Med Rev. 2020;8(1):158 180. (10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.004) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Veale D, Miles S, Read J, et al. Penile dysmorphic disorder: development of a screening scale. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(8):2311 2321. (10.1007/s10508-015-0484-6) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Greenstein A, Dekalo S, Chen J. Penile size in adult men—recommendations for clinical and research measurements. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32(2):153 158. (10.1038/s41443-019-0157-4) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Johnston L, McLellan T, McKinlay A. (Perceived) size really does matter: male dissatisfaction with penis size. Psychol Men Masculinity. 2014;15(2):225 228. (10.1037/a0033264) - DOI

LinkOut - more resources