Validity of the Patient-Reported Clinical Global Impression of Change as a Measure of Treatment Response in Men with Premature Ejaculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) measures have high utility in clinical practice. However, it is unknown whether the CGIC is valued for assessing premature ejaculation (PE) symptoms and/or the relationship between CGIC and other validated PE patient-reported measures. AIM: The study aims to assess the validity of the patient-reported CGIC measure in men with PE and to examine the relationship between CGIC ratings and assessments of control, satisfaction, personal distress, and interpersonal difficulty. METHODS: Data from a randomized, double-blind, 24-week phase 3 trial in 1,162 men with PE who received dapoxetine (30 mg or 60 mg) or placebo on demand provided the basis for the analysis. Patients were ≥18 years, in a stable monogamous relationship for ≥6 months, met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition-Text Revision criteria for PE for ≥6 months, and had an intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) ≤2 minutes in ≥75% of intercourse episodes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The CGIC asked patients to rate improvement or worsening of their PE compared with the start of the study using a 7-point response scale; other patient-reported measures were control over ejaculation, satisfaction with sexual intercourse, interpersonal difficulty, and personal distress related to ejaculation. Stopwatch-measured IELT was recorded. Associations between CGIC and change in other measures at study end point were assessed. RESULTS: The magnitude of IELT increased for each category of improvement on the CGIC: 1.63, 4.03, and 7.15 minutes for slightly better, better, and much better, respectively. Higher CGIC ratings were correlated with greater improvement in control (r = 0.73), satisfaction (r = 0.62), greater reduction in distress (r = -0.52), and interpersonal difficulty (r = -0.39). Total variance accounted for was 57.4%: control (48.7%), satisfaction (4.5%), IELT (2.8%), and distress (1.15%). CONCLUSIONS: The analyses support the validity of the CGIC measure in men with PE. The CGIC can provide clinicians in practice with a valid and brief outcome assessment of their patient's condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".