ReviewSexual medicine2023
Erectile dysfunction in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Sexual medicine, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Male sexual dysfunction associated with TNF-α inhibitors: an indication-stratified global pharmacovigilance analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- From arthritis to erectile dysfunction: potential pathophysiological mechanisms and multidisciplinary integrated management.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Relationship between inflammatory bowel disease and erectile dysfunction: a 2-sample Mendelian randomization study.Sexual medicine · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients was reported rarely and with small sample. Aim: The study sought to explore the prevalence of ED in men with AS and to determine whether AS is a risk factor for ED. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP Database, CBM, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The search was restricted to the articles published up to October 2022. Assessment tools adapted for prevalence studies were used to evaluate the quality of cross-sectional studies, and the quality of case-control studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The relative risk (RR) and the standard mean difference (SMD) were used to evaluate the association between AS and ED. The subgroup analyses were conducted to identify the resources of heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the pooled estimates. Data were analyzed and graphed using STATA 16.0. Outcomes: The pooled prevalence of ED in AS patients was calculated and the RR and the SMD were used to evaluate the association between AS and ED. Results: A total of 393 AS patients, enrolled in the 8 included studies, were assessed for the prevalence of ED. The pooled ED prevalence estimate was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25% to 63%, Clinical Implications: The present meta-analysis provides evidence of the management of ED in men with AS. Strengths and Limitations: This is the first meta-analysis to provide the prevalence of ED in AS patients and to demonstrate that AS is a risk factor for ED. However, the results after pooling the included studies showed significant heterogeneity. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated the high prevalence of ED in men with AS and that AS is a potential risk factor for ED.
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.