(192) RISK FACTORS FOR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION IN DIABETES MELLITUS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Previous studies have established that diabetes mellitus (DM) markedly raises the risk of developing erectile dysfunction (ED). Despite extensive investigations, the risk factors associated with ED in diabetic men have yet to be unequivocally determined, owing to incongruent and inconclusive results reported in various studies. Objective The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the risk factors for ED in men with DM. Methods A comprehensive systematic review was conducted, encompassing studies published in the PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases up to August 24th, 2023. All studies examining the risk factors of ED in patients with DM were included in the analysis. To identify significant variations among the risk factors, odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were employed. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for longitudinal studies and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Scale for cross-sectional studies. Results A total of 58 studies, encompassing a substantial participant pool of 66 925 individuals diagnosed with DM, both with or without ED, were included in the meta-analysis. Mean age (OR: 1.31, 95% CI = 1.24-1.37), smoking status (OR: 1.32, 95% CI = 1.18-1.47), HbA1C (OR: 1.44, 95% CI = 1.28-1.62), Duration of DM (OR: 1.39, 95% CI = 1.29-1.50), diabetic neuropathy (OR: 3.47, 95% CI = 2.16-5.56), diabetic retinopathy (OR: 3.01, 95% CI = 2.02-4.48), diabetic foot (OR: 3.96, 95% CI = 2.87-5.47), cardiovascular disease (OR: 1.92, 95% CI = 1.71-2.16), hypertension (OR: 1.74, 95% CI = 1.52-2.00), microvascular disease (OR: 2.14, 95% CI = 1.61-2.85), vascular disease (OR: 2.75, 95% CI = 2.35-3.21), nephropathy (OR: 2.67, 95% CI = 2.06-3.46), depression (OR: 1.82, 95% CI = 1.04-3.20), metabolic syndrome (OR: 2.22, 95% CI = 1.98-2.49), and diuretic treatment (OR: 2.42, 95% CI = 1.38-4.22) were associated with an increased risk of ED in men with DM. Conclusions Our study indicates that in men with DM, several risk factors for ED have been identified, including mean age, HbA1C, duration of DM, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic foot, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, microvascular disease, vascular disease, nephropathy, depression, metabolic syndrome, and diuretic treatment. By clarifying the connection between these risk factors and ED, clinicians and scientific experts can intervene and address these risk factors, ultimately reducing the occurrence of ED and improving patient management. Keywords: Diabetes Mellitus, Erectile Dysfunction, Risk factors, Meta-analysis. Disclosure No.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".