ArticleUrology2021
Epidemiology and Diagnosis of Erectile Dysfunction by Urologists Versus Non-Urologists in the United States: An Analysis of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.
Article in Urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postoperative management with a single scheduled outpatient appointment following penile prosthesis placement does not create undue healthcare system burden.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- National Trends in Medication Prescriptions for Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Erectile Dysfunction: Findings from the Norwegian Prescription Database.European urology open science · 2025Article
- Gap in Sexual Dysfunction Management Between Male and Female Patients Seen in Primary Care: An Observational Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the extent to which erectile dysfunction (ED) is managed by urologists versus non-urologists. We sought to characterize the epidemiology, diagnosis, and outpatient treatment of ED using a nationally representative cohort.
methodsWe examined all male patient visits between 2006 and 2016 in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a survey designed to provide a nationally representative estimate of ambulatory visits in the United States. Distribution of ED diagnoses among physician specialties was determined. Demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics of men with ED seeing urologists versus non-urologists were compared using chi-squared tests.
resultsAmong the 170,499 patient visits analyzed, 1.2% were associated with a diagnosis of ED, which translated into 3,409,244 weighted visits annually. Visits for ED were predominantly seen by urologists (58.0%) and family practitioners (26.2%). Men visiting non-urologists for ED were more likely to be younger than 65 (77.4% vs 52.9%, P < .05). Men seeing urologists for ED more frequently had an active cancer diagnosis (24.2% vs 2.8%, P < .05). Non-urologists more readily ordered or reordered phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors for men with ED (66.62% vs 50.77%, P < .05). Advanced therapies such as intracavernosal injections and intra-urethral agents were almost exclusively ordered by urologists compared to non-urologists (2.72% vs 0.25%, P < .05).
conclusionAlmost half of all ED visits were seen by non-urologist providers, who were much less likely than urologists to order advanced pharmacologic therapies. This difference in prescribing patterns presents an opportunity for interdisciplinary collaboration and education to ensure that all patients seeking treatment for ED are receiving guideline-based care.
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.