Validity of premature ejaculation diagnostic tool and its association with International Index of Erectile Function-15 in Chinese men with evidence-based-defined premature ejaculation

作     者：Dong-Dong Tang Chao Li Dang-Wei Peng Xian-Sheng Zhang 

作者机构：Department of Urology The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University Hefei China Reproductive Medicine Center The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University Hefei China 

出 版 物：《Asian Journal of Andrology》 (亚洲男性学杂志（英文版）)

年 卷 期：2018年第20卷第1期

页      面：19-23页

核心收录：

学科分类：12[管理学] 1201[管理学-管理科学与工程(可授管理学、工学学位)] 1002[医学-临床医学] 08[工学] 0839[工学-网络空间安全] 081201[工学-计算机系统结构] 0812[工学-计算机科学与技术（可授工学、理学学位）] 

基　　金：funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China 

主　　题：erectile dysfunction International Index of Erectile Function-15 male sexual dysfunction premature ejaculation premature ejaculation diagnostic tool 

摘      要：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.