Erectile dysfunction in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients was reported rarely and with small sample. Aim The study sought to explore the prevalence of ED in men with AS and to determine whether AS is a risk factor for ED. Methods A systematic search was conducted in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP Database, CBM, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The search was restricted to the articles published up to October 2022. Assessment tools adapted for prevalence studies were used to evaluate the quality of cross-sectional studies, and the quality of case-control studies was assessed by Newcastle–Ottawa scale. The relative risk (RR) and the standard mean difference (SMD) were used to evaluate the association between AS and ED. The subgroup analyses were conducted to identify the resources of heterogeneity. The sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the pooled estimates. Data were analyzed and graphed using STATA 16.0. Outcomes The pooled prevalence of ED in AS patients was calculated and the RR and the SMD were used to evaluate the association between AS and ED. Results A total of 393 AS patients, enrolled in the 8 included studies, were assessed for the prevalence of ED. The pooled ED prevalence estimate was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25% to 63%, P < .001) with the statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 95.1%, P < .001). After pooling the data for RR, the results showed that men with AS were at a significantly higher risk for ED when compared with the general population without AS (RR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.28 to 3.25, P = .003; heterogeneity: I2 = 72.6%, P = .003). The pooled results of 5 studies, which provided the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score, demonstrated that patients with AS had significantly lower values in the IIEF erectile function domain as compared with the healthy control subjects (SMD, −0.60; 95% CI, −0.80 to −0.41; P < .001; heterogeneity: I2 = 34.4%, P = .192). Additionally, the other domain of the IIEF also showed lower values when compared with the general population without AS (P < .05). Clinical Implications The present meta-analysis provides evidence of the management of ED in men with AS. Strengths and Limitations This is the first meta-analysis to provide the prevalence of ED in AS patients and to demonstrate that AS is a risk factor for ED. However, the results after pooling the included studies showed significant heterogeneity. Conclusion Our meta-analysis demonstrated the high prevalence of ED in men with AS and that AS is a potential risk factor for ED.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".