ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Optimizing erectile function evaluation pattern in postoperative pelvic fracture-urethral injury patients: introducing PFUI pEF PROM.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo establish a psychometric validated pelvic fracture-urethral injury postoperative erectile function patient reported outcome measure (PFUI pEF PROM). We also aim to explore PFUI patients' potential classification and suitable postoperative erectile function assessment pattern.
methodsA total of 93 PFUI patients who treated by excision and primary anastomotic (EPA) urethroplasty from January 2020 to August 2022 were enrolled to this study. Patients who had intercourse completed the IIEF-5, those who had sexual stimulation other than intercourse finished PFUI pEF PROM, and those who performed both completed the IIEF-5, and PFUI pEF PROM. Erection Hardness Score (EHS) was completed by all patients. This PROM was performed psychometric validation and used to find PFUI patients potential classification through latent class analysis. Then, we determined the cut-off value though receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve and performed univariate analysis subgroups feature.
resultsThe PFUI pEF PROM demonstrated high reliability and validity with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.928. It correlated significantly with IIEF-5 (r = 0.550, p < 0.001) and EHS (r = 0.909, p < 0.001). The latent class analysis identified three patient subgroups, with 14.5 as the subgroup cut-off value. Urethral stricture length, IIEF-5, and EHS score were identified as influence factors for maximal erection potential. An assessment pattern combining IIEF-5, EHS, and the PFUI pEF PROM covered 92.5% of patients.
conclusionThis PROM effectively addresses the current limitation in assessing erectile function in PFUI patients. This study provides a promising tool for stratified assessment, prediction erection recovery, and treatment guidance in the PFUI Erectile dysfunction field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38700606What 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.