High Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction in Diabetic Men With Depressive Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Erectile dysfunction (ED) may be common among diabetic men with depressive symptoms (DS), but its prevalence is still debated. AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis of the prevalence of ED in diabetic men with DS compared to those without DS, calculating the relative odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to January 2018. All the studies assessing the risk of ED among diabetic men having DS were reviewed. 2 Authors independently assessed literature and extracted information eligibility. Any disagreement was resolved by a third reviewer. Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate study quality in meta-analyses. We calculated the ORs with 95% CIs using software Stata, Version 12.0; StataCorp, College Station, TX). Data were pooled using a fixed or random effects model according to heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess potential bias. This study was conducted according to the guidelines for Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies. OUTCOMES: The strength of the association between DS and the prevalence of ED was evaluated using ORs and 95% CIs. RESULTS: = 83.5%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Diabetic men with DS had a significantly increased prevalence of ED, suggesting that ED should be of concern to clinicians when managing diabetic men with DS. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: A strength of this study is that it is the first meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of ED in diabetic men with DS and quantitatively analyze the association between DS and ED risk among diabetic men. A limitation is that all included studies were cross-sectional studies, which may generate bias. CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis of 5 cross-sectional studies suggests that diabetic men showing DS, compared to the diabetic men without DS, have more risk of ED. Further larger prospective cohorts with more power or meta-analysis based on individual patient data need to be conducted to confirm this association. Wang X, Yang X, Cai Y, et al. High Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction in Diabetic Men With Depressive Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis. J Sex Med 2018;15:935-941.
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 | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".