MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4377246186 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad060.185

(193) Sleep Related Painful Erections: A Survey Based Analysis of Patient Reported Experiences with Diagnosis and Management

2023· article· en· W4377246186 sur OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Wong, D. Chung, Faysal A. Yafi, Premal Patel

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSexual function and dysfunction studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Obstructive sleep apneaPsychological interventionDemographicsSexual functionErectile dysfunctionSexual dysfunctionPsychiatryMedical historyInsomniaClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Sleep related painful erection disorder (SRPE) is a debilitating condition which is currently not well understood. It is characterized by frequent nighttime awakenings due to painful nocturnal erections. Various theories surrounding the pathophysiology of this condition include increased testosterone levels, obstructive sleep apnea, altered autonomic function and psychosomatic factors, amongst others. To our knowledge, there have been no controlled studies investigating this, with literature consisting mostly of case reports. We sought to survey those affected to determine a unifying cause, treatment, and assess the impact on their quality of life Objective Understand the collective experience and unifying themes in the presentation, diagnosis and treatment of patients with SRPE. Methods A group of 63 men diagnosed with SRPE were administered a 30 item questionnaire consisting of both multiple choice, short and long answers from January 2021 to July 2021. Question items were generated based on existing literature. Survey items were reviewed by two academic Urologists specializing in treatment of sexual dysfunction. Information about demographics, clinical history, social history, symptomatology, and both surgical and medical interventions were captured. Quality of life was captured on a 5 point likert scale. Results Overall, 40 patients diagnosed with SRPE responded to the survey. The median age of those surveyed was 43.5 (range 21-69). Majority of respondents (66%, n=21) had no pertinent past medical history related to disorders of erectile function, while 50% (n=20) of subjects reported definitely or possibly having sleep apnea, and 38% (n=12) reported a mental health disorder. The most common current medication among subjects was baclofen (55%, n=22), followed by clonazepam (10%, n=4). However, baclofen proved to be beneficial in only 36% (n=8) of responders who had trialed it. The interventions which were most commonly reported as helpful by those who attempted were sleep repositioning (50%, n=4) and oxygen device use (43%, n=3). Majority of patients have not required intervention in the emergency department 92.5%, n=37), and only 7.5% (n=3) patients have required penile aspiration. Responders described their quality of life as being severely impacted by SRPE, with 14 choosing a severity of 5 (35%). The median score for this response category was 4. Conclusions SRPE is a poorly described condition which should be distinguished from other erectile pathologies such as priapism. The majority of our patients reported OSA, and previous studies have suggested a sleep-cycle association. Sleep reposition and oxygen use appear to provide the most relief for the majority of our patients, although this was not a reliable treatment option. From a medication perspective, there was no consistent class of medication that provides symptom relief. Majority of patients appear to manage their erections without requiring a visit to ED. An overwhelming majority of our patients identified with a mental health disorder, and similarly the average response was that this had a severe impact on their quality of life. Based on these responses and the impact on quality of life, further studies must be done to better elucidate this condition. Disclosure No

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,094
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,307

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,317
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineMême sujetSexual function and dysfunction studiesTravaux en français237 207