ArticleSexual medicine2026
Analysis and prediction of sexual well-being variables in men with and without lifelong premature ejaculation in a non-western context.
Article in Sexual medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Premature ejaculation (PE) is often viewed as couples' problem, with research increasingly emphasizing the importance of evaluating the man's PE in the context of partner variables as a meaningful outcome in PE management. Aim: To describe and compare differences in self and perceived partner sexual well-being in men with lifelong PE (LPE) and men without PE, and further, to understand the role of various PE symptoms (ejaculatory control, ejaculatory latency [EL], consistency of symptomology) on sexual well-being specifically within the LPE group. Methods: One thousand two hundred sixty-five men visiting a urology clinic in Uzbekistan responded to validated items asking about the intensity of PE symptoms, their sex-related distress/bother, and the perceived dissatisfaction of their partner. Regression modeling was used to identify salient predictors of sexual well-being related to both the man himself and his partner. Outcomes: Predictors of sexual well-being in both the overall sample (LPE and non-PE men) and in just the LPE group. Results: Although both LPE (n = 187) and non-PE (n = 990) men from this clinical sample showed negative effects of urologic symptomology on their well-being, PE men's well-being was diminished even further ( Clinical Translation: In addition to managing PE symptoms, clinicians should help patients and their partners explore ways to address the effects of PE symptomology on their sexual well-being. Strengths and Limitations: The well-validated items, multifactorial definition of groups, multiple sexual-well-being outcome variables, and well-powered analyses represented study strengths. The lack of the partner's own assessment of sexual dissatisfaction and the lack of contextual factors such as relationship satisfaction, sexual interest, and partner sexual functioning prevented a more comprehensive view regarding patient and partner well-being. Conclusion: Men with PE report greater negative effects on sexual well-being than men with other urological problems, with consistency of the PE problem standing out as the strongest factor associated with diminished sexual well-being and poor ejaculatory control and short ELs playing a lesser role. Findings highlight the importance of treatment that addresses the psychosexual well-being of both the man and his partner.
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.