The premature ejaculation diagnostic tool （PEDT） is a brief diagnostic measure to assess premature ejaculation （PE）. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding its validity in the new evidence-based-defined...The premature ejaculation diagnostic tool （PEDT） is a brief diagnostic measure to assess premature ejaculation （PE）. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding its validity in the new evidence-based-defined PE. This study was performed to evaluate the validity of PEDT and its association with IIEF-15 in different types of evidence-based-defined PE. From June 2015 to January 2016, a total of 260 men complaining of PE and defined as lifelong PE （LPE）/acquired PE （APE） according to the evidence-based definition from Andrology Clinic of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, along with 104 male healthy controls without PE from a medical examination center, were enrolled in this study. All individuals completed questionnaires including demographics, medical and sexual history, as well as PEDT and IIEF-15. After statistical analysis, it was found that men with PE reported higher PEDT scores （14.28 ± 3.05） and lower IIEF-15 （41.26 ± 8.20） than men without PE （PEDT： 5.32 ± 3.42, IIEF-15：52.66 ± 6.86, P 〈 0.001 for both）. It was suggested that a score of 〉9 indicated PE in both LPE and APE by sensitivity and specificity analyses （sensitivity： 0.875, 0.913; specificity： 0.865, 0.865, respectively）. In addition, IIEF-15 were higher in men with LPE （42.64 ± 8.11） than APE （39.43 ± 7.84, P 〈 0.001）. After adjusting for age, IIEF-15 was negatively related to PEDT in men with LPE （adjust r = -0.225, P 〈 0.001） and APE （adjust r = -0.378, P 〈 0.001）. In this study, we concluded that PEDT was valid in the diagnosis of evidenced-based-defined PE. Furthermore, IIEF-15 was negatively related to PEDT in men with different types of PE.展开更多
文摘The premature ejaculation diagnostic tool （PEDT） is a brief diagnostic measure to assess premature ejaculation （PE）. However, there is insufficient evidence regarding its validity in the new evidence-based-defined PE. This study was performed to evaluate the validity of PEDT and its association with IIEF-15 in different types of evidence-based-defined PE. From June 2015 to January 2016, a total of 260 men complaining of PE and defined as lifelong PE （LPE）/acquired PE （APE） according to the evidence-based definition from Andrology Clinic of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, along with 104 male healthy controls without PE from a medical examination center, were enrolled in this study. All individuals completed questionnaires including demographics, medical and sexual history, as well as PEDT and IIEF-15. After statistical analysis, it was found that men with PE reported higher PEDT scores （14.28 ± 3.05） and lower IIEF-15 （41.26 ± 8.20） than men without PE （PEDT： 5.32 ± 3.42, IIEF-15：52.66 ± 6.86, P 〈 0.001 for both）. It was suggested that a score of 〉9 indicated PE in both LPE and APE by sensitivity and specificity analyses （sensitivity： 0.875, 0.913; specificity： 0.865, 0.865, respectively）. In addition, IIEF-15 were higher in men with LPE （42.64 ± 8.11） than APE （39.43 ± 7.84, P 〈 0.001）. After adjusting for age, IIEF-15 was negatively related to PEDT in men with LPE （adjust r = -0.225, P 〈 0.001） and APE （adjust r = -0.378, P 〈 0.001）. In this study, we concluded that PEDT was valid in the diagnosis of evidenced-based-defined PE. Furthermore, IIEF-15 was negatively related to PEDT in men with different types of PE.
