Erectile dysfunction may be common among men with diabetes, but its prevalence is still debated. We aimed to assess the relative prevalence of erectile dysfunction in diabetes searching major databases from inception to November 2016 for studies reporting erectile dysfunction in men with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. We conducted a meta-analysis of the prevalence [and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs)] of erectile dysfunction in diabetes compared with healthy controls, calculating the relative odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. A random effect model was applied. From 3747 initial hits, 145 studies were included representing 88 577 men (age: 55.8 ± 7.9 years). The prevalence of erectile dysfunction in diabetes overall was 52.5% (95% CI, 48.8 to 56.2) after adjusting for publication bias, and 37.5%, 66.3% and 57.7% in Type 1, Type 2 and both types of diabetes, respectively (P for interaction < 0.0001). The prevalence of erectile dysfunction was highest in studies using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (82.2%, 17 studies, P for interaction < 0.0001). Studies with a higher percentage of people with hypertension moderated our results (beta = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.008 to 0.040; P = 0.003; R2 = 0.00). Compared to healthy controls (n = 5385) men with diabetes (n = 863) were at increased odds of having erectile dysfunction (OR 3.62; 95% CI, 2.53 to 5.16; P < 0.0001; I2 = 67%, k = 8). Erectile dysfunction is common in diabetes, affecting more than half of men with the condition and with a prevalence odds of approximately 3.5 times more than controls. Our findings suggest that screening and appropriate intervention for men with erectile dysfunction is warranted. © 2017 Diabetes UK

High prevalence of erectile dysfunction in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 145 studies

Veronese, Nicola
2017-01-01

Abstract

Erectile dysfunction may be common among men with diabetes, but its prevalence is still debated. We aimed to assess the relative prevalence of erectile dysfunction in diabetes searching major databases from inception to November 2016 for studies reporting erectile dysfunction in men with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. We conducted a meta-analysis of the prevalence [and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs)] of erectile dysfunction in diabetes compared with healthy controls, calculating the relative odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. A random effect model was applied. From 3747 initial hits, 145 studies were included representing 88 577 men (age: 55.8 ± 7.9 years). The prevalence of erectile dysfunction in diabetes overall was 52.5% (95% CI, 48.8 to 56.2) after adjusting for publication bias, and 37.5%, 66.3% and 57.7% in Type 1, Type 2 and both types of diabetes, respectively (P for interaction < 0.0001). The prevalence of erectile dysfunction was highest in studies using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (82.2%, 17 studies, P for interaction < 0.0001). Studies with a higher percentage of people with hypertension moderated our results (beta = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.008 to 0.040; P = 0.003; R2 = 0.00). Compared to healthy controls (n = 5385) men with diabetes (n = 863) were at increased odds of having erectile dysfunction (OR 3.62; 95% CI, 2.53 to 5.16; P < 0.0001; I2 = 67%, k = 8). Erectile dysfunction is common in diabetes, affecting more than half of men with the condition and with a prevalence odds of approximately 3.5 times more than controls. Our findings suggest that screening and appropriate intervention for men with erectile dysfunction is warranted. © 2017 Diabetes UK
2017
69 YEARS OLD
SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION
MEN 40
EPIDEMIOLOGY
MELLITUS
BIAS
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14245/6798
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 276
social impact