ArticleBMC urology2026
Association between fibrinogen-albumin ratio and erectile dysfunction: a retrospective cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC urology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe fibrinogen-to-albumin ratio (FAR) is a new marker used in inflammatory processes and is effective in demonstrating associated microvascular damage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between FAR and erectile dysfunction (ED), a sexual intercourse disorder associated with inflammatory processes and endothelial dysfunction.
methodsData from 1876 patients presenting with ED between January 2020 and 2025 were evaluated. A total of 424 patients, 214 in the ED group and 210 in the control group, were included in the study. Anthropometric measurements and biochemical examinations of the patients were recorded. FAR values were compared between the ED group, ED subgroups, and the control group. The cut-off value for the FAR value and the potential correlation between ED severity were examined.
resultsThe FAR value was calculated as 89.4 ± 27.3 in the ED group and 67.8 ± 18.8 in the control group (p < 0.001). The optimal cut-off value for FAR was found to be 101.49 with 33% sensitivity and 99% specificity. FAR values were significantly higher in the ED subgroups compared to the control group. A moderate linear correlation was found between IIEF-5 scores and FAR values (r = -0.554, p < 0.001). The FAR value (AUC = 0.724) was found to be more successful in distinguishing between diseased and healthy individuals than CAR (AUC = 0.647), a similar inflammatory marker.
conclusionIt has been shown that FAR is significantly associated with the presence and severity of ED and can be a reliable and easily accessible marker to support the diagnosis of ED.
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.