 |
|
Erectile Dysfunction—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
One of our primary goals was to use a nationally representative sample (comprising 3566 men) to define the national prevalence of ED, regardless of the cause of ED or whether men had sought medical care for the condition. Shah and Lo describe underlying causes for ED found in a small number of patients who stated that they had ED and were referred for care to a specialty clinic. They further classify this population using an unstated, physician-created definition of ED. We strongly oppose an attempt to draw inferences from their data and make conclusions using ours. Not only do the significant conceptual differences between a population-based sample and a tertiary referral sample preclude meaningful comparisons between these 2 populations but also, the complex behavioral, psychological, and physiological components of a condition like ED demand a patient-centered definition such as the one used in our study.1
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Correspondence: Dr Saigal, . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Christopher S. Saigal, MD, MPH;
Hunter Wessells, MD;
Timothy J. Wilt, MD, MPH
RELATED LETTER
Erectile Dysfunction
Nainal S. Shah and Nelson Lo
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(15):1667.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Predictors and Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction in a Racially Diverse Population
Christopher S. Saigal, Hunter Wessells, Jennifer Pace, Matt Schonlau, Timothy J. Wilt, and for the Urologic Diseases in America Project
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(2):207-212.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
