ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2014
Sex differences in pudendal somatosensory evoked potentials.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scalp Topography of Lower Urinary Tract Sensory Evoked Potentials.Brain topography · 2020Trial
- [Neurological diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Midline sacral meningeal cysts: Neurophysiology abnormalities and their correlation with pelvic sensory and visceral symptoms.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Low test-retest reliability of a protocol for assessing somatosensory cortex excitability generated from sensory nerves of the lower back.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- To Explore the Diagnostic Value of Bulbocavernosus Muscle Reflex and Pudendal Somatosensory Evoked Potentials for Diabetic Neurogenic Bladder.Disease markers · 2022Article
- New method for early evaluation of clitoris innervation using clitoro-perineal reflex after feminizing genitoplasty in early childhood: a pilot-study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSomatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) of the pudendal nerve are a well-established diagnostic tool for the evaluation of pelvic floor disorders. However, the possible influence of sex differences on response latencies has not been established yet. The aim of this study was to standardize the procedures and to evaluate possible effects of gender differences on anal and penile/clitoral SEPs.
methodsThe anal and dorsal penile/clitoral SEPs were recorded in 84 healthy subjects (40 males and 44 females; mean age 47.9 ± 16.6 years, range 16-81 years; mean height 168.3 ± 20.3 cm, range 155-187 cm). Pudendal SEPs were evoked with a bipolar surface electrode stimulating the clitoris or the base of the penis and the anal orifice and recorded using scalp electrodes. The latency of the first positive component (P1) was measured. The effect and possible interaction of (a) stimulation site and (b) gender on the two variables was explored by multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).
resultsThe examination was well tolerated and a reproducible waveform of sufficient quality was obtained in all the subjects examined. In the female subjects, a mean cortical P1 latency of 37.0 ± 2.6 and 36.4 ± 3.2 ms for anal and clitoral stimulation, respectively, was found. In the male subjects, the cortical latencies were 38.0 ± 3.5 ms for the anal stimulation and 40.2 ± 3.7 ms for the penile stimulation. At MANOVA, a statistically significant main effect of stimulation site and gender as well as a significant interaction between the two variables was found.
conclusionsAnal and dorsal penile/clitoral SEPs represent a well-tolerated and reproducible method to assess the functional integrity of the sensory pathways in male and female subjects. Obtaining sex-specific reference data, by individual electrophysiological testing, is highly recommended because of significant latency differences between males and females, at least as far as penile/clitoral responses are concerned.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24357448What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.