ArticleF1000Research2025
Primary Research on Correlation between Erectile Function Assessment through International Index of Erectile Function Score and Nocturnal Penile Tumescence and Rigidity Measurements in Men with Erectile Dysfunction.
Article in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Erectile Dysfunction: A Comprehensive Review of Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Contemporary Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Clinical performance of a novel brief erectile dysfunction scale and comparison with the international index of erectile function-5.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
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
Introduction: Erectile dysfunction (ED) affects approximately 40% of men; however, the true prevalence remains uncertain owing to various factors. Diagnosing ED is challenging, and tools like the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and its shorter version, the IIEF-5, are commonly used to assess its severity. Although nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity (NPTR) monitoring, as an objective test, can help diagnose ED, it is complex and not economical. Therefore, this study aimed to compare NPTR with the IIEF to assess the IIEF's potential as a cost-effective diagnostic tool for ED. Methods: A correlation analysis study was performed on 139 men with ED between August 2017 and March 2023 who had undergone NPTR assessment in Jakarta, Indonesia. ED was assessed using detailed evaluations and IIEF-5 questionnaires. NPTR data was collected using a Rigiscan Results: In total, 139 men with ED (median age: 42 years) were included. The median IIEF-5 score was 11, and comorbidities included dyslipidemia (20%) and diabetes (12%). There are significant correlations between IIEF scores and NPTR variables (number of erections recorded, base tumescence increment, average base tumescence, and duration of base erection with ˃ 60% rigidity). Additionally, significant negative correlations were observed between HbA1c levels and several NPTR variables, including the number and quality of nocturnal erections. Significant correlations were also found between HbA1c and various NPTR variables. Conclusion: This study underscores the value of subjective questionnaires such as the IIEF-5 in diagnosing ED, especially in the absence of advanced tests like the NPTR assessment. We found correlations between IIEF scores and nocturnal erection frequency, as well as specific erection characteristics. Our findings highlight the importance of a personalized approach to ED diagnosis. We also observed that higher HbA1c levels were associated with reduced nocturnal erection quality, highlighting the metabolic influence on erectile function. Although IIEF aids in cost-effective assessments, it should not replace objective testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.