Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26846406›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of men's health2017

The Association of Erectile Dysfunction and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Critical Review.

Omer A Raheem, Jeannie J Su, Joel R Wilson, Tung-Chin Hsieh

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of men's health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Cardiometabolic effects of hypoprolactinemia.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2024
    Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Omer A Raheem1 University of California, San Diego, Department of Urology, San Diego, CA, USA.
Jeannie J Su2 Yale School of Medicine, Department of Urology, New Haven, CT, USA.
Joel R Wilson3 University of California, San Diego, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA.
Tung-Chin Hsieh1 University of California, San Diego, Department of Urology, San Diego, CA, USA.
University of California, San Diego · USYale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite strong association between erectile dysfunction (ED) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), there is a paucity of clear clinical guidelines detailing when and how to evaluate for ED in patients with known CVD, or vice versa. This systematic review discuss the role of cardiologists and urologists in the characterization of risk and management of CVD in the setting of ED, as well as contrasting the current evaluation of CVD and ED from the standpoint of published consensus statements. A comprehensive literature review utilizing MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library® Central Search, and the Web of Science was performed to identify all published peer-reviewed articles in the English language describing ED and CVD across various disciplines. There is strong consensus that men with ED should be considered at high risk of CVD. Available risk assessment tools should be used to stratify the coronary risk score in each patient. The 2012 Princeton III Consensus Conference expanded on existing cardiovascular recommendations, proposing an approach to the evaluation and management of cardiovascular risk in men with ED and no known CVD. This systematic review highlights the similarities and differences of the existing clinical guidelines and recommendations regarding assessment and management of ED and CVD, as well as the pathophysiological linkage between ED and CVD, which may permit physicians, including urologists, to perform opportunistic screening and initiate secondary prophylaxis with regard to cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in young, nondiabetic men with ED.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesErectile DysfunctionGuidelines as TopicHumansMaleRisk Assessmentcardiovascular diseaseerectile dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID26846406
PMCPMC5675247
OpenAlexW2339631756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.