ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2019
Penile dimensions: What are surgeons measuring?
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of residual penile curvature after penile prosthesis placement.Asian journal of andrologyReview
- Advancing Precision in Penile Length Measurement: Evidence-based Synthesis of Stretched Penile Length INdicator Technique (SPLINT).Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile dimensions and related dissatisfaction, may have significant impact upon patients whom undergo andrological surgeries. Whilst penile dimension assessment is performed as part of the andrological evaluation, little is known regarding the surgeons' opinions nor contemporary practices. This study was designed to gain further insights into the opinions and practices of clinicians regarding penile measurement and is the first paper in the literature of its kind. The study was performed by inviting clinicians at andrological/urological conferences to participate in a voluntary 10 point survey concerning penile dimensions. Of 126 responses recorded, 56% (71/126) were andrologists. Of the responders, 45% (56/122) did not routinely perform penile measurement prior to treatment nor were they aware of the standardised method (93/123). The majority 64%(81/126) would measure the penile length from the pubic bone to the tip (79/123) with the penis in a stretched position (99/125). A goniometer was the most common way of assessing penile curvature (37/73) and the length would be measured mostly on the convex side (46/119). Responders felt that, from the patients perspective, a combination of length, girth and shape (51/123), or length only (50/123), were the more important aspects of penile dimensions. As responders were recruited based on their interest in andrological aspects of urology, it may not be representative of the general urological community. In conclusion, attitudes and methods of penile measurement are quite varied amongst surgeons, thus further discussion and investigation of this aspect of andrological care ought to occur.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.