Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24667838›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2014

Asexuality development among middle aged and older men.

Yan-Ping Huang, Bin Chen, Ping Ping, Hong-Xiang Wang, Kai Hu, Hao Yang, Tao Zhang, Tan Feng, Yan Jin, Yin-Fa Han and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Traditional Chinese medical therapy for erectile dysfunction.Translational andrology and urology · 2017
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yan-Ping HuangDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Bin ChenDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Ping PingDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Hong-Xiang WangDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Kai HuDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Hao YangDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Tao ZhangDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Tan FengDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Yan JinDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Yin-Fa HanDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Yi-Xin WangDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Yi-Ran HuangDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Institute of Andrology, Shanghai, China.
Renji Hospital · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess erectile function in middle-aged and older men with asexuality status and further analyze their specific reasons for this condition. SUBJECTS AND

methodsMen who had regular sexual intercourse attempts (sex frequency ≥ 1 time per month) were classified into mild erectile dysfunction (ED), moderate to severe ED and non-ED according to International Index of Erectile Function-5, and men having no sexual intercourse attempts for at least 6 months were defined as having an asexuality status. The risk factors associated with ED were collected in a sample of 1,531 Chinese men aged 40 to 80 years, and the self-report reasons for asexuality were recorded in asexual cohort individually. Comparative analyses and multivariate regression models were conducted among these groups.

resultsThe prevalence rates of ED and asexuality status were 49.9% and 37.2%. The asexuality status group had higher risk factors than the moderate to severe ED group in terms of old age (age ≥ 65, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 17.69 versus (Vs.) 7.19), diabetes (crude OR: 2.40 Vs. 2.36) and hypertension (crude OR: 1.78 Vs. 1.72). The specific reasons for the asexuality status were "erectile difficulty" (52.9%), "do not care about sexuality" (53.5%)", "no longer necessary to have sexuality at this age" (47.7%), "severe stress" (44.4%), "severe fatigue" (26.3%) and "masturbation" (26.9%).

conclusionsMen with an asexual status suffer from higher risk factors for ED than men with moderate to severe ED. The majority of this asexual status could be attributed to a full ED, although the reasons for this transient asexuality also involved sexual attitudes and interests, sexual partners and masturbation.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiabetes MellitusErectile DysfunctionHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID24667838
PMCPMC3965446
OpenAlexW2006819199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.