OBJECTIVE: To determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical urologic examination. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical 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. MEASUREMENT: During 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. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-nine men 55 to 85 years of age from the MMAS. RESULTS: Complete 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. CONCLUSION: Our 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.
OBJECTIVE: To determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical urologic examination. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical 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. MEASUREMENT: During 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. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-nine men 55 to 85 years of age from the MMAS. RESULTS: Complete 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. CONCLUSION: Our 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.
Authors: M Linzer; T R Konrad; J Douglas; J E McMurray; D E Pathman; E S Williams; M D Schwartz; M Gerrity; W Scheckler; J A Bigby; E Rhodes Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Thomas G Travison; Susan A Hall; William A Fisher; Andre B Araujo; Raymond C Rosen; John B McKinlay; Michael S Sand Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Abbi D Lane-Cordova; Kiarri Kershaw; Kiang Liu; David Herrington; Donald M Lloyd-Jones Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Thomas G Travison; Rebecca Shackelton; Andre B Araujo; Susan A Hall; Rachel E Williams; Richard V Clark; Amy B O'Donnell; John B McKinlay Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Pranav S Garimella; Misti L Paudel; Kristine E Ensrud; Lynn M Marshall; Brent C Taylor; Howard A Fink Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 5.562