ArticleOchsner journal2016
Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement for Penile Prosthesis.
Article in Ochsner journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Female urethral stricture disease: a narrative review on diagnosis, surgical techniques and outcomes.International journal of impotence research · 2026Review
- Midterm Outcomes of Venous Leak Embolization in Patients with Venogenic Erectile Dysfunction Unresponsive to Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibitors.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Endovascular therapy for erectile dysfunction: insights from more than 1000 treatments.CVIR endovascular · 2026Article
- Venous Leak Embolization Results in Clinical Improvement of Patients with Mixed Arterio-Venous Erectile Dysfunction Not Responding to Arterial Revascularization Alone.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Observational
- Venous Leak Embolization in Patients with Venogenic Erectile Dysfunction via Deep Dorsal Penile Vein Access: Safety and Early Efficacy.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo consensus on the preferred means of evaluating patients after surgical placement of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) currently exists. Many self-assessment questionnaires are available, but none specifically targets patients with IPPs. The purpose of this study was to assess the construct validity of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for evaluating patient satisfaction after placement of an IPP.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective trial and enrolled patients who elected to have a 3-piece IPP surgically implanted. Postoperatively, patients completed the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), and PGI-I at 3, 6, and 12 months. The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) was used to compare scores over time.
resultsFifty-six patients were enrolled, and complete data were available for 39 patients. At 3 months, the PGI-I correlated with the EDITS (PCC=0.83,
conclusionsOverall, the PGI-I appears to correlate with both the SHIM and EDITS and is a valid evaluation tool for use with patients after IPP placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27999508PMC5158156What 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.