ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
Setting the mood: improving patient satisfaction and clinic efficiency during penile duplex doppler ultrasound assessment.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We sought to identify specific testing conditions that may negatively impact patient experience with Penile duplex Doppler ultrasound (PDDU). We developed a survey designed to assess perception with several predetermined clinical-environment factors. Patients completed the voluntary written-survey at the time of PDDU between January 2022 and June 2024. 37.4% of patients reported at least one of the following negatively impacted their experience: bright lights, hallway noises, room temperature, and frequent staff assessments. Preference regarding clinician gender and type (physician versus advanced practice provider) was also assessed. When assessed prior to starting the consultation, we found that 57.6% reported no provider preference, while 40.6% preferred consultation with physicians. 72.6% reported no provider gender preference, while 25.2% preferred males. In contrast, when assessed at the completion of the consultation, 84.4 and 85.7% reported no preference regarding provider type or gender, respectively. Based on interim analysis of survey response data, a call-button was implemented for patients to alert staff when adequate erection rigidity was achieved during testing. The mean time to response decreased significantly from 15.6 min ±4.2 to 11.2 min ±4.2 (p < 0.001). Further work is needed to validate and identify additional modifiable factors that can be improved upon to enhance patient experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40450093What 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.