A comparison of the international index of erectile function and measurement of nocturnal penile tumescence using the Androscan MIT device

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urological Science Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/UROS.UROS_13_22
M. Chaliy, Dmitri Ohobotov, N. Sorokin, A. Kadrev, L. Dyachuk, A. Strigunov, O. Nesterova, A. Mikhalchenko, R. Bogachev, S. Abbosov, A. Tivtikyan, A. Kamalov
{"title":"A comparison of the international index of erectile function and measurement of nocturnal penile tumescence using the Androscan MIT device","authors":"M. Chaliy, Dmitri Ohobotov, N. Sorokin, A. Kadrev, L. Dyachuk, A. Strigunov, O. Nesterova, A. Mikhalchenko, R. Bogachev, S. Abbosov, A. Tivtikyan, A. Kamalov","doi":"10.4103/UROS.UROS_13_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To determine the agreement between two erectile dysfunction (ED) diagnostic methods, International Index of Erectile Function-15 (IIEF-15) questionnaire and “Androscan MIT” night penile tumescence recorder. Materials and Methods: An assessment of ED in 40 patients (age, 25–60 years) was performed using the “Androscan MIT” device and IIEF-15 questionnaire (erectile domain). Cohen's kappa coefficient and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to examine the difference between “Androscan MIT” and IIEF-15 questionnaire results. During ROC-analyses “Androscan MIT” results were considered the gold standard for ED diagnosis. Results: “Androscan MIT” results had a significant but weak positive correlation with IIEF-15 questionnaire (kappa value = 0.333, P < 0.01). Based on the ROC-analyses, it was found that the sensitivity and specificity of the IIEF-15 questionnaire for severe ED according to “Androscan MIT” were 100% and 55.9%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the IIEF-15 questionnaire for moderate ED according to “Androscan MIT” were 63.2% and 57.1%, and for mild ED, 23.1% and 33.3% respectively. The lowest accuracy of the IIEF-15 questionnaire was for patients with normal erectile function (sensitivity and specificity were 0% and 44.7%, respectively). Conclusion: The agreement between the objective and subjective diagnosis of ED remains low. At the same time, the lower severity of ED according to “Androscan MIT” is associated with less diagnostic value of IIEF-15.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"34 1","pages":"18 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/UROS.UROS_13_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the agreement between two erectile dysfunction (ED) diagnostic methods, International Index of Erectile Function-15 (IIEF-15) questionnaire and “Androscan MIT” night penile tumescence recorder. Materials and Methods: An assessment of ED in 40 patients (age, 25–60 years) was performed using the “Androscan MIT” device and IIEF-15 questionnaire (erectile domain). Cohen's kappa coefficient and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to examine the difference between “Androscan MIT” and IIEF-15 questionnaire results. During ROC-analyses “Androscan MIT” results were considered the gold standard for ED diagnosis. Results: “Androscan MIT” results had a significant but weak positive correlation with IIEF-15 questionnaire (kappa value = 0.333, P < 0.01). Based on the ROC-analyses, it was found that the sensitivity and specificity of the IIEF-15 questionnaire for severe ED according to “Androscan MIT” were 100% and 55.9%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the IIEF-15 questionnaire for moderate ED according to “Androscan MIT” were 63.2% and 57.1%, and for mild ED, 23.1% and 33.3% respectively. The lowest accuracy of the IIEF-15 questionnaire was for patients with normal erectile function (sensitivity and specificity were 0% and 44.7%, respectively). Conclusion: The agreement between the objective and subjective diagnosis of ED remains low. At the same time, the lower severity of ED according to “Androscan MIT” is associated with less diagnostic value of IIEF-15.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际勃起功能指数与Androscan MIT装置测量夜间阴茎肿胀的比较
目的:确定两种勃起功能障碍(ED)诊断方法,即国际勃起功能指数-15(IIEF-15)问卷和“Androscan MIT”夜间阴茎肿胀记录仪之间的一致性。材料和方法:使用“Androscan MIT”设备和IIEF-15问卷(勃起领域)对40名患者(年龄,25-60岁)的ED进行评估。Cohen的kappa系数和受试者操作特征(ROC)分析用于检验“Androscan MIT”和IIEF-15问卷结果之间的差异。在ROC分析中,“Androscan MIT”结果被认为是ED诊断的金标准。结果:“Androscan-MIT”结果与IIEF-15量表呈显著但弱的正相关(kappa值=0.33,P<0.01)。基于ROC分析,根据“Androscan-MIT”,IIEF-15问卷对严重ED的敏感性和特异性分别为100%和55.9%。根据“Androscan MIT”,IIEF-15问卷对中度ED的敏感性和特异性分别为63.2%和57.1%,对轻度ED的敏感性为23.1%和33.3%。IIEF-15问卷的准确度最低的是勃起功能正常的患者(敏感性和特异性分别为0%和44.7%)。结论:ED的客观诊断和主观诊断之间的一致性仍然很低。同时,根据“Androscan MIT”,ED的严重程度较低与IIEF-15的诊断价值较低有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical guidelines of patient-centered bladder management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction due to chronic spinal cord injury – Part 3: Surgical treatment in chronic spinal cord injured patients Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: Clinicopathological profile and outcomes “Rule of Five” in Ureteral Dilatation and its Role in Ureteral Access Sheath Placement during Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Testicular tumor patients presented with scrotal violation-nonstandard surgical approach and its survival rate Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the functional urology guidelines
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1