The Association Between Periodontitis and Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to investigate the association between periodontitis (PD) and erectile dysfunction (ED). A systematic review and meta-analysis on data was extracted and conducted according to PRISMA. Relevant articles were selected from a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and CENTRAL from inception until August 2, 2020. Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies were included. Case reports, case series, nonsystematic reviews and trials published as abstract were excluded. Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the association between PD and the risk of ED. The meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3. Methodological quality assessment was carried out using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Six articles (215008 subjects) were included for analysis. Of the participants, 38,675 cases were compared to 1,76,333 healthy controls. Based on the random effects model, periodontitis was associated with an increased risk of ED (OR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.70–3.85) as compared with the non-periodontitis individuals. The findings were statistically significant with a p < .0001. The statistical heterogeneity was high across all studies ( I 2 = 98%, p < .00001). Estimates of total effects were generally consistent with the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Within the limits of the available evidence, our review and meta-analysis showed that a significant association exists between the PD and ED. The results should be interpreted with caution due to high degree of inconsistency across all the studies.
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 | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".