The Experts below are selected from a list of 1059 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
John B. Mckinlay - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The validity of a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Amy B. O’donnell, Andre B. Araujo, Irwin Goldstein, John B. MckinlayAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical Urologic Examination. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical validation study nested within the Massachusetts Male Aging Study (MMAS), which is an observational cohort study of aging and health in a population-based random sample of men. MEASUREMENT: During an in-person interview, men were asked to respond to a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. A subsample of MMAS participants was then subjected to a clinical Urologic Examination to obtain a clinical diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-nine men 55 to 85 years of age from the MMAS. RESULTS: Complete data were available from 137 men. Erectile dysfunction (ED) measured by self-report and independent Urologic Examination were strongly correlated (Spearman r =.80). Receiver operating curve analysis showed that the self-reported ED item accurately predicts the clinician-diagnosed ED (area under the curve [AUC]=0.888). Stratum-specific likelihood ratios (95% confidence intervals) for self-reports predicting the gold standard were: no ED=0.11 (0.06 to 0.22), minimal ED=1.48 (0.67 to 3.26), moderate ED=8.57 (1.21 to 60.65), and complete ED=12.69 (1.81 to 88.79). These data indicate that men diagnosed with ED by Urologic Examination can be distinguished from men not diagnosed with ED by Urologic Examination if the respondent self-reported no, moderate, or complete ED. CONCLUSION: Our single-question self-report accurately identifies men with clinically diagnosed ED, and may be useful as a referral screening tool in both research studies and general practice settings.
-
The validity of a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. Results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Amy B. O’donnell, Andre B. Araujo, Irwin Goldstein, John B. MckinlayAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical Urologic Examination.
-
A single-question, self-report of erectile dysfunction: comparison with a gold-standard Urologic Examination
Annals of Epidemiology, 2004Co-Authors: A.b. O'donnell, Andre B. Araujo, I. Goldstein, John B. MckinlayAbstract:Purpose To determine how well a single-question self-report measure of erectile dysfunction (ED), consistent with an NIH consensus approach, compares with a complete Urologic Examination. Methods The Massachusetts Male Aging Study (MMAS) is an observational study of aging and health in a population-based random sample of men. An interviewer-administered questionnaire included a single-item self-assessment of ED with response options of none, minimal, moderate, or complete. Of the 855 participants who completed the full MMAS protocol, 134 (age range: 55–85 years; mean ± SD: 67.0 ± 7.3 years) participated in a substudy involving an evaluation by a urologist blind to participant responses on the single-question self-report. Accuracy of self-reports were assessed with sensitivity, specificity, and other screening measures (using the Urologic evaluation as the gold standard). Results ED by self-report and independent Urologic evaluation were strongly correlated (Spearman r = 0.80). Prevalence (%) estimates of ED were categorized by three cutpoints (self-report; Urologic evaluation): minimal, moderate, or complete (74.6; 75.4); moderate or complete (49.3; 59.7); and complete (29.1; 39.6). Sensitivity (range 67.9–91.1%) and specificity (range 75.8–96.3%) were relatively high and depended on categorization chosen, indicating good agreement between the single ED question and the Urologic Examination. Conclusion Our single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction compares well with a complete Urologic Examination—the so-called gold standard. Its brevity allows for cost-efficient and valid information gathering when conducting epidemiologic research. Our single ED question is useful for international comparative studies. It also could be useful in everyday clinical practice.
Andre B. Araujo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The validity of a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Amy B. O’donnell, Andre B. Araujo, Irwin Goldstein, John B. MckinlayAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical Urologic Examination. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical validation study nested within the Massachusetts Male Aging Study (MMAS), which is an observational cohort study of aging and health in a population-based random sample of men. MEASUREMENT: During an in-person interview, men were asked to respond to a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. A subsample of MMAS participants was then subjected to a clinical Urologic Examination to obtain a clinical diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-nine men 55 to 85 years of age from the MMAS. RESULTS: Complete data were available from 137 men. Erectile dysfunction (ED) measured by self-report and independent Urologic Examination were strongly correlated (Spearman r =.80). Receiver operating curve analysis showed that the self-reported ED item accurately predicts the clinician-diagnosed ED (area under the curve [AUC]=0.888). Stratum-specific likelihood ratios (95% confidence intervals) for self-reports predicting the gold standard were: no ED=0.11 (0.06 to 0.22), minimal ED=1.48 (0.67 to 3.26), moderate ED=8.57 (1.21 to 60.65), and complete ED=12.69 (1.81 to 88.79). These data indicate that men diagnosed with ED by Urologic Examination can be distinguished from men not diagnosed with ED by Urologic Examination if the respondent self-reported no, moderate, or complete ED. CONCLUSION: Our single-question self-report accurately identifies men with clinically diagnosed ED, and may be useful as a referral screening tool in both research studies and general practice settings.
-
The validity of a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. Results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Amy B. O’donnell, Andre B. Araujo, Irwin Goldstein, John B. MckinlayAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical Urologic Examination.
-
A single-question, self-report of erectile dysfunction: comparison with a gold-standard Urologic Examination
Annals of Epidemiology, 2004Co-Authors: A.b. O'donnell, Andre B. Araujo, I. Goldstein, John B. MckinlayAbstract:Purpose To determine how well a single-question self-report measure of erectile dysfunction (ED), consistent with an NIH consensus approach, compares with a complete Urologic Examination. Methods The Massachusetts Male Aging Study (MMAS) is an observational study of aging and health in a population-based random sample of men. An interviewer-administered questionnaire included a single-item self-assessment of ED with response options of none, minimal, moderate, or complete. Of the 855 participants who completed the full MMAS protocol, 134 (age range: 55–85 years; mean ± SD: 67.0 ± 7.3 years) participated in a substudy involving an evaluation by a urologist blind to participant responses on the single-question self-report. Accuracy of self-reports were assessed with sensitivity, specificity, and other screening measures (using the Urologic evaluation as the gold standard). Results ED by self-report and independent Urologic evaluation were strongly correlated (Spearman r = 0.80). Prevalence (%) estimates of ED were categorized by three cutpoints (self-report; Urologic evaluation): minimal, moderate, or complete (74.6; 75.4); moderate or complete (49.3; 59.7); and complete (29.1; 39.6). Sensitivity (range 67.9–91.1%) and specificity (range 75.8–96.3%) were relatively high and depended on categorization chosen, indicating good agreement between the single ED question and the Urologic Examination. Conclusion Our single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction compares well with a complete Urologic Examination—the so-called gold standard. Its brevity allows for cost-efficient and valid information gathering when conducting epidemiologic research. Our single ED question is useful for international comparative studies. It also could be useful in everyday clinical practice.
Steven J Jacobsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Dropout in a longitudinal, cohort study of Urologic disease in community men
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2006Co-Authors: Naomi M Gades, Debra J Jacobson, Michaela E Mcgree, Michael M Lieber, Rosebud O Roberts, Cynthia J Girman, Steven J JacobsenAbstract:Background Reasons for attrition in studies vary, but may be a major concern in long-term studies if those who drop out differ systematically from those who continue to participate. Factors associated with dropout were evaluated in a twelve-year community-based, prospective cohort study of Urologic disease in men. Methods During 1989–1991, 2,115 randomly selected Caucasian men, ages 40–79 years from Olmsted County, Minnesota were enrolled and followed with questionnaires biennially; 332 men were added in follow-up. A random subset (~25%) received a Urologic Examination. Baseline characteristics including age, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) symptoms, comorbidities, and socioeconomic factors were compared between subjects who did and did not participate after the twelfth year of follow-up. Results Of the 2,447 men, 195 died and were excluded; 682 did not participate in 2002. Compared with men in the 40–49 year age group, men ≥ 70 years of age at baseline had a greater relative odds of dropout, 2.65 (95% CI: 1.93, 3.63). In age-adjusted analyses, relative to men without stroke, men who had suffered a stroke had a higher odds of dropout, age-adjusted OR 3.07 (95% CI: 1.49, 6.33). Presence of at least one BPH symptom was not associated with dropout, (age-adjusted OR 1.12 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.36)). Conclusion These results provide assurance that dropout was not related to primary study outcomes. However, factors associated with dropout should be taken into account in analyses where they may be potential confounders.
Amy B. O’donnell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The validity of a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Amy B. O’donnell, Andre B. Araujo, Irwin Goldstein, John B. MckinlayAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical Urologic Examination. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical validation study nested within the Massachusetts Male Aging Study (MMAS), which is an observational cohort study of aging and health in a population-based random sample of men. MEASUREMENT: During an in-person interview, men were asked to respond to a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. A subsample of MMAS participants was then subjected to a clinical Urologic Examination to obtain a clinical diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-nine men 55 to 85 years of age from the MMAS. RESULTS: Complete data were available from 137 men. Erectile dysfunction (ED) measured by self-report and independent Urologic Examination were strongly correlated (Spearman r =.80). Receiver operating curve analysis showed that the self-reported ED item accurately predicts the clinician-diagnosed ED (area under the curve [AUC]=0.888). Stratum-specific likelihood ratios (95% confidence intervals) for self-reports predicting the gold standard were: no ED=0.11 (0.06 to 0.22), minimal ED=1.48 (0.67 to 3.26), moderate ED=8.57 (1.21 to 60.65), and complete ED=12.69 (1.81 to 88.79). These data indicate that men diagnosed with ED by Urologic Examination can be distinguished from men not diagnosed with ED by Urologic Examination if the respondent self-reported no, moderate, or complete ED. CONCLUSION: Our single-question self-report accurately identifies men with clinically diagnosed ED, and may be useful as a referral screening tool in both research studies and general practice settings.
-
The validity of a single-question self-report of erectile dysfunction. Results from the Massachusetts Male Aging Study.
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Amy B. O’donnell, Andre B. Araujo, Irwin Goldstein, John B. MckinlayAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine how well a single question of self-reported erectile dysfunction compares to a gold standard clinical Urologic Examination.
Jürgen Pannek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Chronic bacterial prostatitis in men with spinal cord injury
World Journal of Urology, 2014Co-Authors: Jörg Krebs, Peter Bartel, Jürgen PannekAbstract:Purpose Recurrent urinary tract infections (UTI) are a major problem affecting spinal cord injury (SCI) patients and may stem from chronic bacterial prostatitis. We have therefore investigated the presence of chronic bacterial prostatitis and its role in the development of recurrent symptomatic UTI in SCI men. Methods This study is a prospective cross-sectional investigation of bacterial prostatitis in SCI men in a single SCI rehabilitation center. In 50 men with chronic SCI presenting for a routine Urologic Examination, urine samples before and after prostate massage were taken for microbiologic investigation and white blood cell counting. Furthermore, patient characteristics, bladder diary details, and the annual rate of symptomatic UTI were collected retrospectively. Results No participant reported current symptoms of UTI or prostatitis. In most men (39/50, 78 %), the microbiologic analysis of the post-massage urine sample revealed growth of pathogenic bacteria. The majority of these men (32/39, 82 %) also presented with mostly (27/39, 69 %) the same pathogenic bacteria in the pre-massage sample. There was no significant ( p = 0.48) difference in the number of symptomatic UTI in men with a positive post-massage culture compared with those with a negative culture. No significant ( p = 0.67) difference in the frequency distribution of positive versus negative post-massage cultures was detected between men with recurrent and sporadic UTI. Conclusions Most SCI men are affected by asymptomatic bacterial prostatitis; however, bacterial prostatitis does not play a major role in the development of recurrent UTI. The indication for antibiotic treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis in asymptomatic SCI men with recurrent UTI is questionable.