Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Sexual Dysfunction in Male: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An association between lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and risk of sexual dysfunction in male remains controversial in recent decades. Materials and Methods: PubMed and Web of Science were searched up to October 28, 2020, for articles reporting the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in men with LUTS. The main outcomes were results from sexual dysfunction assessments. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed by using The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) or JBI Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI). Results: A total of 24 full-manuscript papers met the inclusion criteria. The pooled OR for 21 studies suggested that patients with severer LUTS had a higher risk of sexual dysfunction (OR = 3.31, 95% CI: 2.43 to 4.49, p < 0.001, I 2 = 90%). A significant decrease in scores of assessment tools for sexual dysfunction was observed in the patients with higher severity of LUTS compared with those patients with lower severity (WMD = −5.49, 95%CI: −7.25 to −3.27, P < 0.001, I 2 = 96%). Similar outcomes were also found in subgroup analyses. In a detailed analysis of specific sexual function domains, the severity of LUTS was associated with erectile dysfunction, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction, except for sexual desire. Conclusion: The study demonstrates an association between exposure of lower urinary tract symptoms and risk of sexual dysfunction in male. Assessment of sexual function is necessary for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Systematic Review Registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero , identifier: CRD42020208747.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".