Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40937119›Full record

ArticleSexual medicine2025

Visual illusion in male self-assessment of penile dimensions: a clinical study on penile length perception bias between flaccid and erect states.

Zhongjie Zheng, Yan Chen, Wei Zhang, Qianxi Chen, Zhen Liu, Eric Chung, Kai Hong, Haocheng Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Zhongjie ZhengDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Yan ChenDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Urology, the People's Liberation Army No. 92493 Hospital (PLA No. 92493 Hospital), Huludao 125000, China.
Qianxi ChenDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Zhen LiuDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.
Eric ChungDepartment of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3373-3668
Kai HongDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4872-1782
Haocheng LinDepartment of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5333-6611

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite the significance of penile dimensions in male health and self-perception, there is a lack of population-specific references and understanding of self-assessment biases. Aim: To establish population-specific references and investigate self-assessment biases in penile dimensions. Methods: A single-center cross-sectional study (2024-2025) prospectively enrolled 342 Chinese males. Standardized measurements of flaccid and stretched lengths were performed by a trained andrologist. Participants were asked to report their perceived erect penile length, and stratified into three mutually exclusive groups: (1) accurate estimation (AE), where self-reported lengths = stretched lengths; (2) overestimation (OE), where self-reports > stretched lengths; and (3) underestimation (UE), where self-reports < stretched lengths. The penile lengthening ratio (PLR) was calculated as (stretched - flaccid length)/flaccid length. Statistical analyses included paired Outcomes: Mean flaccid and stretched lengths, self-reported lengths, and the distribution of estimation groups were determined. Results: Mean flaccid and stretched penile lengths were 7.27 ± 1.60 and 11.89 ± 1.57 cm, respectively. Self-reported erectile lengths (12.81 ± 1.85 cm) significantly exceeded measured values ( Clinical Implications: These findings provide critical references for clinical counseling on penile size and perioperative doctor-patient communication, potentially alleviating patient anxiety stemming from cognitive biases to a certain extent. Strengths and Limitations: The strengths include standardized measurements and a clear classification of estimation group. The limitations include incomplete baseline data (lacking penile circumference, smoking history, etc.), single-center small-sample bias, inevitable selection bias, and absence of partner satisfaction data and validated assessments. Conclusion: This study revealed that self-reported erect lengths among adult males were significantly longer than clinician-measured stretched lengths. OE participants accounted for more than 70% of the sample, while UE participants tended to have a greater PLR. The research provides reference ranges for flaccid and stretched penile lengths in Chinese males, offering objective data to support clinical counseling and surgical communication. This not only alleviates patient anxiety rooted in cognitive biases but also elucidates the potential association between penile size misperceptions and PLR.

Indexed as

lengthpenile dimensionspenile lengthening ratiopenisself-perception bias

Identifiers

PMID40937119
PMCPMC12422012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.