ArticleSexual medicine2025
Differential efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training in primary versus acquired premature ejaculation: an 8-week comparative study using non-invasive biomechanical assessment.
Article in Sexual medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Association Between Premature Ejaculation and Non-Dipper Blood Pressure: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
Background: Premature ejaculation (PE), including lifelong (LPE) and acquired (APE) subtypes, negatively affects men's sexual, psychological, and relational well-being. Aim: This study aimed to investigate pelvic floor muscle function differences between healthy individuals and premature ejaculation patients and evaluate the efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training in improving premature ejaculation subtype symptoms using an innovative assessment approach. Methods: In this 8-week prospective study, 199 men were enrolled (LPE, n = 66; APE, n = 83; healthy controls [HC], n = 50). PE participants received PFMT comprising PFM awareness, biofeedback-based strengthening, and integration into sexual activity. PFM function was measured with a perineometry/biofeedback device; anxiety and depression with 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9); and intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) by stopwatch. Outcome: The primary outcomes were improvements in pelvic floor muscle function, ejaculatory latency time, and premature ejaculation symptom severity. Results: After 8 weeks of PFMT, significant improvements were observed in both groups. In the APE group, IELT increased from a median of 120 s to 180 s, and premature ejaculation diagnostic tool (PEDT) scores decreased by 2 points ( Clinical Implications: Pelvic floor muscle training appears effective in addressing psychological and physical symptoms of premature ejaculation, particularly for acquired premature ejaculation. Strengths and Limitations: This study is the first to use a non-invasive biomechanical approach to compare pelvic floor muscle function between healthy individuals and PE patients. It also uniquely examines how PFM training affects different PE subtypes, offering insights for more targeted treatment strategies. However, the research is limited by the absence of sham controls, which are necessary to distinguish placebo effects, and it also lacks long-term follow-up to assess enduring outcomes. Conclusion: Pelvic floor muscle training improves ejaculatory control and psychological outcomes in premature ejaculation patients, with greater efficacy observed in acquired premature ejaculation; further research is needed to explore long-term effects and underlying mechanisms.
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.