ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Clinical performance of a novel brief erectile dysfunction scale and comparison with the international index of erectile function-5.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to develop a novel brief erectile dysfunction (ED) scale to serve as a rapid clinical tool for grading ED severity, thereby providing a more concise and efficient diagnostic instrument for routine practice. Methods: A total of 528 eligible patients were enrolled in this study. Each participant independently completed both the novel brief scale and the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), and subsequently underwent RigiScan monitoring for nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity (NPTR), intracavernosal injection (ICI) of vasoactive agents, a comprehensive battery of psychological assessments-including the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)-as well as a panel of laboratory tests. The results from all these examinations were compared with the scores obtained from both the brief scale and the IIEF-5 to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the novel instrument. Weighted Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated to assess the concordance between the two scales in terms of severity classification, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed using RigiScan grading as the reference standard, with the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and other diagnostic metrics being computed. Results: The brief scale exhibited a strong correlation with the IIEF-5 (Spearman's Conclusions: The novel brief scale may be clinically applicable for assessing ED across a spectrum of severity. It affords the advantages of greater speed and convenience and holds promise as a complementary rapid screening tool for the preliminary assessment of ED.
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.