ArticleSexual medicine2025
Repeatability in measuring curvature in Peyronie's disease.
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.
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: Despite guideline recommendations to assess Peyronie's disease (PD) curvature during an intracavernous injection-induced erection, no standardized measurement protocol exists, and considerable interobserver variability remains. Aim: To evaluate the interobserver reliability of penile curvature measurements in patients with PD and to determine if image annotation enhances measurement consistency. Methods: In this study, 4 experienced urologists independently assessed erect penile curvature in 22 male patients enrolled in a prospective PD clinical trial. Two image sets per patient were analyzed: 1 consisting of self-captured photographs taken at home and the other obtained in the clinic after intracavernosal injection of alprostadil. Each image set included standardized lateral and dorsal views. The potential impact of an assisting line on photographic measurements was also evaluated. Outcomes: Interobserver agreement in curvature measurement, the effect of line annotation on measurement accuracy, and the comparison of measurement consistency between home-acquired and clinic-induced erection images. Results: Interobserver agreement was high, with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient values ranging from 0.77 to 0.88 across assessments. No statistically significant improvement in repeatability was observed with the addition of assisting lines. Furthermore, no meaningful difference in reproducibility was detected between home-based and pharmacologically induced image sets. Clinical Implications: Accurate measurement of penile curvature is crucial for comparing studies and evaluating treatment results. Variations in measurement techniques can lead to inconsistent data interpretation and reduce generalizability. Strengths and Limitations: This study highlights the need to standardize PD curvature assessment. While using multiple expert raters increases reliability, the small sample size and subjective interpretation of curvature may limit its broader use. Conclusion: Penile curvature measurements in PD show high interobserver reliability, regardless of photographic conditions or the use of assisting lines.
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.