• J Gen Intern Med · Jun 2005

    The validity of a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. Results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.

    • Amy B O'Donnell, Andre B Araujo, Irwin Goldstein, and John B McKinlay.
    • New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA 02472, USA.
    • J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Jun 1; 20 (6): 515519515-9.

    ObjectiveTo determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical urologic examination.Design And SettingClinical validation study nested within the Massachusetts Male Aging Study (MMAS), which is an observational cohort study of aging and health in a population-based random sample of men.MeasurementDuring an in-person interview, men were asked to respond to a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. A subsample of MMAS participants was then subjected to a clinical urologic examination to obtain a clinical diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.ParticipantsOne hundred thirty-nine men 55 to 85 years of age from the MMAS.ResultsComplete data were available from 137 men. Erectile dysfunction (ED) measured by self-report and independent urologic examination were strongly correlated (Spearman r=.80). Receiver operating curve analysis showed that the self-reported ED item accurately predicts the clinician-diagnosed ED (area under the curve [AUC]=0.888). Stratum-specific likelihood ratios (95% confidence intervals) for self-reports predicting the gold standard were: no ED=0.11 (0.06 to 0.22), minimal ED=1.48 (0.67 to 3.26), moderate ED=8.57 (1.21 to 60.65), and complete ED=12.69 (1.81 to 88.79). These data indicate that men diagnosed with ED by urologic examination can be distinguished from men not diagnosed with ED by urologic examination if the respondent self-reported no, moderate, or complete ED.ConclusionOur single-question self-report accurately identifies men with clinically diagnosed ED, and may be useful as a referral screening tool in both research studies and general practice settings.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…