ReviewCureus2025
Erectile Dysfunction in Young Adults: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unconsummated marriage: etiology and treatment of erectile dysfunction in newlywed men-a narrative review with a focus on China.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Sexual dysfunction and related factors in adult males with familial Mediterranean fever.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Erectile Dysfunction: A Comprehensive Review of Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Contemporary Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Clinical performance of a novel brief erectile dysfunction scale and comparison with the international index of erectile function-5.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Perceived Erectile Dysfunction in a Single Young Male With Multiple Associated Psychological Factors.American journal of men's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erectile dysfunction (ED), traditionally considered a condition of older men, is increasingly reported among men under the age of 40, yet its prevalence in this population remains underestimated. While psychogenic factors have been considered the primary cause, ED is now recognized as a multidimensional condition with both organic and psychological aspects. Hence, this review aims to synthesize current evidence on the epidemiology, psychosocial impact, etiological factors, and management strategies of ED in the young male population. A narrative review was conducted using PubMed's search builder, applying a combination of the following Medical Subject Headings and keywords: "Erectile Dysfunction" and "Young." The search identified 1,981 articles, from which articles were selected based on relevance and methodological quality. The prevalence of ED in young men varies widely, with studies reporting rates as high as 35%. While psychogenic causes such as performance anxiety, depression, and relationship issues are prevalent, a significant proportion of young men also present with organic etiologies, including endothelial dysfunction, hormonal imbalances, metabolic syndrome, and neurogenic disorders. Lifestyle factors such as pornography use, poor sleep quality, dietary habits, lack of physical activity, and recreational drug use have also been independently linked with ED. Management of ED in this population requires a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates both pharmacologic treatments (e.g., phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors, hormone therapy) and non-pharmacologic interventions, including lifestyle modification and cognitive-behavioral therapy. ED in young men is an increasingly prevalent and clinically complex condition that necessitates comprehensive evaluation and individualized treatment. Further research is essential to improve outcomes in this growing patient population.
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.