The journal of sexual medicine · 2020
Moving Toward Empirically Based Standardization in the Diagnosis of Delayed Ejaculation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rowland David L, Cote-Leger Philippe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Criteria for delayed ejaculation (DE) rely on a long ejaculation latency (EL) time, lack of control/advancement regarding ejaculation, and associated bother/distress; yet, few studies have investigated these criteria in men who indicate the desire to ejaculate sooner during partnered sex.
AIM: To help standardize criteria for DE by better understanding characteristics of men who desire to ejaculate sooner during partnered sex in terms of their EL, reported ejaculatory control, and level of bother/distress, as well as their perceptions of typical and ideal ELs for men in general and of ELs for men with premature ejaculation (PE).
METHODS: A total of 572 men recruited through social media responded to an online survey regarding their EL, as well as typical, ideal, and PE ELs of men in general. They also rated (i) their ability to control and/or advance ejaculation and (ii) their level of associated bother/distress. 4 comparison groups were then established: men with probable DE (with [DE1] and without [DE2] ejaculatory control issues), a reference group with no ejaculatory disorders, and men who identified as having PE.
OUTCOMES: To demonstrate differences in EL, ejaculatory control, and bother/distress between men with delayed ejaculation and the control and PE reference groups.
RESULTS: ELs for men with probable DE were twice as long as those with no ejaculatory disorders. When probable DE men were further subdivided into DE2 and DE1, differences were greater for the DE2 group. DE2 men also differed significantly from the reference group on ejaculatory control/advancement but not on bother/distress. Both DE and reference groups differed from the PE group.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Using both EL and ejaculatory control are useful in distinguishing men with delayed ejaculation from men without delayed ejaculation.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: A sizable sample drawn from a multinational population powered the study, whereas the use of social media for recruitment limited the generalizability of findings.
CONCLUSION: Both EL and ejaculatory control differentiate men with probable DE from a control reference group having no ejaculatory disorders. Differences in bother/distress did not emerge as significant. Implications for diagnosing men with DE are presented. Rowland DL, Cote-Leger P. Moving Toward Empirically Based Standardization in the Diagnosis of Delayed Ejaculation. J Sex Med 2020;17:1896-1902.
AIM: To help standardize criteria for DE by better understanding characteristics of men who desire to ejaculate sooner during partnered sex in terms of their EL, reported ejaculatory control, and level of bother/distress, as well as their perceptions of typical and ideal ELs for men in general and of ELs for men with premature ejaculation (PE).
METHODS: A total of 572 men recruited through social media responded to an online survey regarding their EL, as well as typical, ideal, and PE ELs of men in general. They also rated (i) their ability to control and/or advance ejaculation and (ii) their level of associated bother/distress. 4 comparison groups were then established: men with probable DE (with [DE1] and without [DE2] ejaculatory control issues), a reference group with no ejaculatory disorders, and men who identified as having PE.
OUTCOMES: To demonstrate differences in EL, ejaculatory control, and bother/distress between men with delayed ejaculation and the control and PE reference groups.
RESULTS: ELs for men with probable DE were twice as long as those with no ejaculatory disorders. When probable DE men were further subdivided into DE2 and DE1, differences were greater for the DE2 group. DE2 men also differed significantly from the reference group on ejaculatory control/advancement but not on bother/distress. Both DE and reference groups differed from the PE group.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Using both EL and ejaculatory control are useful in distinguishing men with delayed ejaculation from men without delayed ejaculation.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: A sizable sample drawn from a multinational population powered the study, whereas the use of social media for recruitment limited the generalizability of findings.
CONCLUSION: Both EL and ejaculatory control differentiate men with probable DE from a control reference group having no ejaculatory disorders. Differences in bother/distress did not emerge as significant. Implications for diagnosing men with DE are presented. Rowland DL, Cote-Leger P. Moving Toward Empirically Based Standardization in the Diagnosis of Delayed Ejaculation. J Sex Med 2020;17:1896-1902.