ArticleCureus2026
A Single-Centre Clinical Audit of Erectile Dysfunction Assessment and Management in UK General Practice Against National Guidelines.
Article in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a prevalent condition with significant psychosocial and cardiometabolic implications, particularly in ageing populations. This quality improvement project evaluated whether the assessment and management of ED at a community general practice aligned with contemporary clinical guidelines, including those from the British Society for Sexual Medicine and the European Association of Urology. A retrospective audit was conducted using electronic patient records from a cohort of individuals prescribed ED medications between July 2023 and July 2024. Fifty patients were randomly selected, excluding those diagnosed prior to 2017, to ensure relevance to current standards. Three key criteria were assessed: appropriate biochemical investigation for underlying causes, documentation of cardiovascular (CVD) risk assessment, and prescribing of cost-effective first-line pharmacotherapy. Audit performance demonstrated that 41/50 patients (82%) received recommended blood tests (standard: 85%), 38/50 patients (76%) underwent documented CVD risk assessment (standard: 80%), and 45/50 patients (90%) were prescribed low-cost phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (standard: 90%). While prescribing practices met expected standards, gaps were identified in comprehensive investigation and cardiovascular evaluation. Findings suggest that although ED management at the practice is broadly aligned with national guidance, improvements are needed in systematic risk assessment and documentation. The observed pattern between incomplete investigations and lack of CVD assessment highlights the need for structured consultation templates and increased clinician awareness. Recommendations include the implementation of validated assessment tools, enhanced coding practices, and patient education on the relationship between ED and cardiovascular health. A re-audit is advised to assess the impact of these interventions. This project underscores the importance of holistic ED management in primary care, with implications for both patient outcomes and healthcare sustainability.
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.