کد مقاله کد نشریه سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی نسخه تمام متن
3904481 1250392 2010 7 صفحه PDF دانلود رایگان
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله ISI
Comparison of Validated Instruments Measuring Sexual Function in Men
موضوعات مرتبط
علوم پزشکی و سلامت پزشکی و دندانپزشکی بیماری‌های کلیوی
پیش نمایش صفحه اول مقاله
Comparison of Validated Instruments Measuring Sexual Function in Men
چکیده انگلیسی

ObjectivesThere is no universally accepted instrument to measure sexual function (SF) in men. We compare validated SF measures in a single cohort.MethodsWe compare the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite SF domain (EPIC-SF), and a reconstructed University of California Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index SF domain (PCI-SF) in 856 men scheduled for radical prostatectomy. We define potency thresholds for the PCI-SF and EPIC-SF.ResultsMean age, body mass index, Gleason sum, and PSA were 57 years, 26.7 kg/m2, 6.3, and 5.9 ng/mL, respectively. Mean instrument scores were as follows: SHIM 20.1; EPIC-SF 65; PCI-SF 71. All instruments were significantly intercorrelated (r = 0.99 for EPIC-SF vs PCI-SF, r = 0.75 for SHIM vs EPIC-SF, r = 0.77 for SHIM vs PCI-SF, all P < .001). The SHIM had the greatest negative skew and ceiling effect (P < .001). Although high scores on either the EPIC-SF or PCI-SF translated reliably to high SHIM scores, the reverse was not true. Subjects who reported no erectile dysfunction (ED) on the SHIM (≥22) had diverse overall SF, whereas those who scored highly on the EPIC-SF or PCI-SF had both excellent erectile function (potency) and overall SF (including orgasmic function, erectile function, and sexual desire). EPIC-SF scores ≥65 and PCI-SF scores ≥75 define men that are both potent and have good SF.ConclusionsThe SHIM is intended as an instrument to assess ED. It is, however, inadequate as a measure of overall SF. The EPIC-SF and PCI-SF capture gradations of both sexual and erectile function and may also be used to define potency more comprehensively.

ناشر
Database: Elsevier - ScienceDirect (ساینس دایرکت)
Journal: Urology - Volume 76, Issue 2, August 2010, Pages 380–386
نویسندگان
, , , , , , , ,