Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41556621›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of andrology2026

Are men aware of normal penile length and sexual function? A narrative review of the literature.

Yoonus Faizal, Winston Wu, Vincent Chan, Glenn Duns, Kathryn M Schubach, Darren J Katz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

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

6 authors.

Yoonus FaizalEastern Health, Victoria 3218, Australia.
Winston WuWestern Health, Victoria 3021, Australia.
Vincent ChanMen's Health Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia.
Glenn DunsMen's Health Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia.
Kathryn M SchubachMen's Health Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia.
Darren J KatzMen's Health Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

EjaculationPenile ErectionPenisErectile DysfunctionHumansMaleOrgan Sizeadultawarenesserectile dysfunctionmalenormalpenile lengthpremature ejaculation

Identifiers

PMID41556621
PMCPMC13258189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.