ReviewAsian journal of andrology2026
Are men aware of normal penile length and sexual function? A narrative review of the literature.
Review in Asian journal of andrology, 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
Men frequently present to their health practitioners with concerns that they are not "normal" in the domains of sexual anatomy and function. This narrative review aims to synthesize the existing evidence on the general male population's perception of normative sexual anatomy (penile length) and function (erectile and ejaculatory function). A structured literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, limited to English language studies that involved adult participants from non-medical backgrounds. Of the 1098 studies identified, only seven met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, indicating an insufficiency in research directly addressing men's perceptions of normative sexual anatomy and function. The studies included in this review found that there was an inaccurate understanding of what empirically constitutes "normal". Men considered above-average penis lengths to be common and perceived themselves as "small" despite being within the normal range. They tended to overestimate typical intercourse durations and were inaccurate in self-diagnosing ejaculatory dysfunction and erectile dysfunction. The inability to differentiate normal and abnormal sexual function reflects a poor understanding of what constitutes normal. These findings may inform future research and provide guidance for educating clinicians and the public to improve sexual health.
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.