Jump to content

Talk:Erectile dysfunction/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A

A study in 2002 found that ED can also be associated with masturbating. The number of hours alone cause pressure on the penis from the saddle of an office chair is directly related to erectile dysfunction

I think this is kind of vague and should be cahnged. What is meant? The articles relates with police officers who spend many hours on bycicles and not common people... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdanno (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Impotence can have physical or psychological causes. This article talks entirely about the former and completely ignores the latter. --Raul654 04:31, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is easier to face a physical reason than a psy one Raul. SweetLittleFluffyThing

Once again removing "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome" spam. TMS is not important enough to mention in an article on impotence: it's a discarded medical concept. Please don't re-add this nonsense here. - Nunh-huh 23:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doug is on the loose again. JFW | T@lk 07:52, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

removed some name/slander spam

What is this sentence in the third paragraph supposed to mean?

"Erection, tied closely as it is about ideas of physical well being, can cause severe abdominal cramping and anal leakage."

It seems like this sentence may be missing some words, such as: "Inability to achieve ..."

68.18.22.17 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Major unilateral changes

You know, there are better ways to expand this article than padding it with cut-and-pasted treatment drug articles. A summary of treatments and history (which would involve actual writing and research) might be one way to go. --Calton 06:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MPLX has, unprompted, decided that the articles/stubs on Sildenafil (Viagra), Vardenafil (Cialis), Tadalafil (Levitra), and Enzyte should all be merged and redirected here. I think that the four articles deserve separate articles, and cannibalizing their content here is mere padding (I am biting my lip, resisting several obvious jokes). Opinions? --Calton 09:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Normal? - Please expand

I think, the article should also focus on the normal or average erection; like normal erect duration, normal intercourse duration, and what difference makes the distinguish. --Rrjanbiah 05:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst doing some research for this subject i found an excellent site called netdoctor which I feel the existing Impotence / Erectile Dysfonction content would benefit from an link out to Netdoctors content. Netdoctor content is impartial, descriptive and easy for the general public to asorb. There is some really useful information on the physcological parts of the disease state.
An example of some of the content can be found here : http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/features/unzipped_003722.htm
Please let me know your thoughts ?
MelisClarkMelissa Clark 14:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with adding links that are appropriate to the subject, and expand the user's knowledge about it beyond what's in an encyclopedia article. Go for it. Be bold! =Axlq 15:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To the last user who uploaded the link to *Study of gene transfer for erectile dysfunction shows promise I have deleled this for the reasons below :

I think that this information has some validity but it is something that you should have mentionned in the discussion page before adding. After having validiated the content, it should then be referenced/linked too throughout the rest of the document and the link should then have been added in the 'sources' section. It should also be reviewed by the other people moderating this page. The content at hot science does not seem to be a official scientific organisation which has undergone proven medical research. Therefore I think that there should be more reseach to see if this data is valid !! any questions, feel free to contact me. Melissa Clark 12:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Melissa Clark, while I think you have a valid point, I would remind you to please include an edit summary to your edits. Just add some text explaining your edit. When you blank something out without an edit summary, many other editors take that as a sign of a vandal.
As to the link in question, I examined it too with an eye for deleting it, but I felt that the content of the site was noncommercial and educational, so I concluded that the link is okay because it doesn't seem to violate WP:SPAM.

Inaccuracy

Viagra was not the first drug approved by the FDA for impotence; Muse (Alprostadil) preceded it by a year. Someone needs to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottlevin (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Hi, I have just been reading through this article and feel that the article would significantly better from restructuring the content, particularly the treatment area as its really disorganised, Three examples are: the oral treatment section and then a PDE5's section discussed later in the document. the controversial and uncontroversial section areas the history section at the bottom of the page

It is quite unclear. Is there anyone who is taking the lead of this article ??

Melis81 (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Blueberries

I recall a newspaper article saying that blueberries are supposed to help with Erectile Dysfunction. Could anyone verify where this is correct, and if any other fruits or vegetables have been found to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.10.93 (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Found an article about watermelon here but not the Blueberry one. 86.171.10.93 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw an article on this not long ago. Needless to say, a peer-reviewed medical journal this is not.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/sexual-health/mens-sexual-health/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100213219&GT1=31028 Dunkelweizen (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My link to this article on this website http://www.midlifebachelor.com/ed/ed-intro.html was deleted for not following the guidelines. Apparently because I am the author, and also own the site - it is considered SPAM. I completely disagree - that article is the primary reason that I created the site ... as when I went through this medical condition, there was no readily-available first-hand account of what a midlife male goes through when he discovers he has erectile dysfunction. Why would wikipedia not want a first-hand, completely factual account of such an experience for such a critical topic referenced on its site? Thanks! Gregmlb 04:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your link was deleted because it is there to promote your site and is a personal web page. Please see Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Thanks, Gwernol 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, pure pornography masquing as medicine. Olliekamm 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been doing allot of research on this subject and I found that a page on a commercial site gives good non medication advice regarding Erectile disfunction. Might be worth including in external links. URL http://www.bathmatenordic.com/international/erectile.dysfunction.php Agust. --Agustsmari (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Giles Brindley's use of injections in "History"

There is an error in this section. The drug Brindley injected was phenoxybenzamine, not phentolamine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiesdad (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


How (not) to communicate new scientific information: a memoir of the famous Brindley lecture, whose author attended the lecture, says it was papaverine. I have edited the article to reflect this. Jamesscottbrown (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem text

This needs to be reformated.

Penile Constrictive Ring Research (MaxErect)

  • In 2006, the Medical Advisory Board commissioned a medical study to determine the effectiveness of the penile constrictive rings (MaxErect) on a group of 46 male patients who had recently undergone a complete removal of the prostate gland. The study took place over a period of 90 days and each man was given penile constrictive rings (MaxErect ED Eliminator Pack). A majority of the patients were using current conventional methods for treating erectile dysfunction (ED), including erection enhancing drugs, penile injections, VEDs (vacuum erection devices), etc.
  • Prior to the inclusion of the penile Constrictive ring (MaxErect), each man was asked to complete a standard questionnaire, the International Index of Erectile Function (IIED) questionnaire, on the effectiveness of his current treatment, level of sexual activity, satisfaction, etc. on a scale of 1-5. After the inclusion of the penile constrictive ring(MaxErect)for a period of 90 days, each man completed the IIEF questionnaire again.
  • Use of the penile constrictive ring (MaxErect) enabled the test group of patients to achieve normal erectile function during the test period with a score of 20.81 on the Erectile Dysfunction Scale. The same test group of patients prior to using the MaxErect, but using conventional restoration therapies were unable to achieve more than a score of 3.62 (Severe ED) on the Erectile Dysfunction Scale.
  • In addition to the improved physical sexual ability, the penile constrictive ring(MaxErect) was effective in increasing the experience and pleasure, as well as confidence for all the men in this study. The men also experienced a greater satisfaction in their sex life as a whole and in the relationship with their partner. The results of this study will be published in early 2009 in The Journal of Sexual Medicine.
  • Abstract: The effect of a novel penile constriction ring on erectile dysfunction in a cohort of post-radical prostatectomy patients was measured utilizing the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) before and after the constriction ring was introduced. This group consisted of patients who had failed on a variety of commonly used interventions including most of the pharmacopeia for erectile dysfunction. The ring itself is engineered to maintain a relatively constant resistance across a wide circumference range representing a “constant resistance ring” (CRR) thereby averting the property of current penile constriction rings to tighten exponentially as erection occurs.
  • DISCUSSION. Penile constriction rings have been used for many years both as “sexual enhancement” devices and as adjunctive treatment for the newer VEDs. In fact, it is generally acknowledged that without the use of such constriction rings, most of the modern VEDs would work poorly. Consequently, fewer than 44% of patients choose to use these devices under these circumstances.12 Constriction rings have generally involved the use of materials that become exponentially tighter as the penis fills. This results in the common complaint of discomfort or ejaculatory impairment. Although there are no formal studies done on the efficacy or long term use of penile constriction rings, it is felt that in many cases they might cause significant tissue damage as a result of these qualities. Additionally these complaints are often a cause of VED discontinuation or underutilization. This is unfortunate as these approaches to PRPED and ED of other etiologies might otherwise reduce the need for PDE5 inhibitors or at least reduce dosing strength and attendant side effects and risk. The CRR used in this preliminary study on patients with PRPED employs a material that confers near-constant resistance across a broad range of circumferences thereby eliminating the “exponential tightness” problem. This is one of the major factors differentiating this device from other constriction rings; the material is engineered to provide constant durometric (circumferential) tension throughout the first 400-500% expansion of the ring’s circumference. This provides pressure sufficient enough to occlude the veins of the penis and restrict blood flow out of the organ without impairing arterial supply and tissue oxygenation, as well as minimizing trauma to nerves. Although more controlled clinical research trials are needed involving the use of this intervention, it would appear that the relative efficacy of a CRR as a management tool for penile vein constriction and venous leak using its unique material compares very favorably with other, more invasive and expensive interventions for veno-occlusive ED.
  • Conclusion: A penile constriction ring with stable resistance across a broad range of circumferences shows promise as a significant improvement in current technology as a safe and inexpensive intervention in conjunction with known pharmaceutical interventions in this difficult group of patients with erectile dysfunction. Application in other groups of this technology requires additional study, but indications are that this might allow reduction in use and dosage of drugs used for erectile dysfunction. This would confer benefits for function, safety, and costs.


Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ED and diabetes and cardiovascular disease ? I think it makes sense to point out that ED may be our body's way of warning us about diabetes and heart problems due to high blood pressure , plaque and other heart related issues. I don't see that pointed out here but most people know when they get a spontaneous or morning erection that this is just our body's way of testing our cardiovascular system. Our body is basically saying that you will not have sex until you fix this life and death situation. As for diabetes , it's well known that ED is one of the effects of diabetes but what if it preceded diabetes? Insulin resistance associated with diabetes keeps sugar in blood elevated which prevents oxygen and other nutrients to pass through, thus disabling erection.I know all of this personally since I had ED 2-3 years ago and then had to learn all the angles about it and only when I lowered my high blood pressure through supplementation and when I lost symptoms of diabetes did my erections return almost to normal. Also this article doesn't mention the clear role of cortisol in inhibiting sexual arousal . Bottom line this article as it is trivializes the issue of ED and doesn't offer any background and underlying causes of it and doesn't offer any workable solutions.I could offer some clues but only if the article improves so it wouldn't be lost Vlado1979 (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Review articles

A review which we could us to improve this article:

  1. Albersen M, Mwamukonda KB, Shindel AW, Lue TF (2011). "Evaluation and treatment of erectile dysfunction". Med. Clin. North Am. 95 (1): 201–12. doi:10.1016/j.mcna.2010.08.016. PMID 21095423. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Groups

The Erectile Dysfunction Foundation, Inc., (pending 501c3) is the only support or advocacy organization for men with ED. Their mission is to Educate men about erectile dysfunction and help them find treatment or cure through education, support, adovcacy and research. Their main outreach is the website, www.franktalk.org. Franktalk.org is the only website for erectile dysfunction that is not commercial. Written in clear, everyday language, the site thoroughly explains each treatment in detail. Photos and videos, many of them submitted by the men themselves, give the average man's perspective. Discussion boards provide men with answers to questions, support for treatment choices, and encouragement to seek help. Men can read articles on ED, discuss issues, and chat with men with ED on treatments, life styles, and all aspects of ED.

www.franktalk.org Hryqwert (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.5.162.113, 4 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please add to the Causes section the following, or similar:

"Porn Use: There's some evidence that erectile dysfunction and delayed ejaculation in young men may be due to heavy Internet porn use. It appears to take a couple of months to reverse itself. Details of a 28,000 user italian survey here: http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2011/02/24/visualizza_new.html_1583160579.html"

Source for the Italian Study of porn use in young men affecting erectile dysfuntion: http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2011/02/24/visualizza_new.html_1583160579.html

Is an italian news agency no longer a reliable source?


86.5.162.113 (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.44.42.200, 19 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please expand on this sentence

The most important organic causes are cardiovascular disease and diabetes, neurological problems (for example, trauma from prostatectomy surgery), hormonal insufficiencies (hypogonadism) and drug side effects.

by adding this sentence:

It is important to recognize that hypogonadism is a common but under-diagnosed effect of traumatic brain injury, even when it is only mild, which may not emerge until some years after the injury. A recent study describes post-traumatic hypogonadism as "a critical problem for Public Health."

My evidence is:

[1] High Risk of Hypogonadism after Traumatic Brain Injury: Clinical Implications, Agha A, Thompson C 2006 Pituitary Volume 8, Numbers 3-4, 245-249, DOI: 10.1007/s11102-005-3463-4 http://www.springerlink.com/content/u77p2t822qw76760/

[2] Hypogonadism after traumatic brain injury, Hohl A et al, Arq Bras Endocrinol Metab vol.53 no 8 São Paulo Nov 2009 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-27302009000800003&script=sci_arttext "Considering the high incidence of TBI, post-TBI hypogonadism arises as a critical problem for Public Health " 82.44.42.200 (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


This request would be more appropriate for the hypogonadism article. Yobol (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:RECENT and re-assess, and re-request if applicable. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Internal link: penis pumps

Under the Treatments section, during the section-summary, penis pumps as used for treating erectile dysfunction (ED) are "distinguished from other penis pumps." The "other penis pumps" describe penis pumps used for penis enlargement, and an internal link to the Penis Enlargement page is included.

Further down there is a subsection of the Treatments section titled "Devices." The "main article" linked here is the same article linked in the summary. It is titled "penis pumps" and takes the user to the Penis Enlargement page. A second link is placed here in the body of the subsection itself, also entitled "penis pumps."

The issue is that it seems the treatments section summary is specifically saying that there are two types of penis pumps: one for Penis Enlargement, and one for ED treatment. The summary wants to make sure the user knows there is a difference. However, if the penis enlargement pumps are linked as the main article for the ED treatment devices, then it comes into conflict with the summary.

Either the section summary should be reworded to eliminate the distinction between the two types of pumps, or (more likely) the subsection should eliminate the internal links to the penis enlargement page. Humchuckaninny (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Move!

The name of this text should be Erectile dysfunction instead of Impotence, since impotence means more than erectile dysfunction. While "Impotentia coeundi" means an erectile dysfunction, there are other impotentias with other meanings. Stern 09:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 21:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Aren't we forgetting something, say, an article about the word Impotence? Impotence currently redirects here, and there's no article about Impotence as in Unable-to-do-a-thing-about-it. "Impotent, he saw his house burn down" -Mariano July 6, 2005 08:36 (UTC)

  • DISAGREE No one heard of 'erectile dysfunction' ten years ago, it's just a euphimism coined by drug companies. Choosing ED over impotence just increases commercial factors having an influence on our culture.

Re: Disagree above - the term ED or erectile dysfunction was not coined by drug companies but rather in 1993 by a National Institute of Health consensus panel that decided that the term "impotence" had implictions about the man's power and capabilities in general and so the more clear term "erectile dysfunction" was used. The term "erectile difficulties" was indeed coined by drug companies to encourage men with difficulty rather than outright dysfunction to seek treatment. Michael www.sexualmedicineclinic.ca

Are y'all the same people who renamed gambling "gaming"? Same thing, same motivation: make profits by susbstituting sanitized words for true ones. Pure Orwellian double-speak. Impotence should be referred to as "impotence", NOT "erectile dysfunction", and gambling should be referred to as "gambling", NOT "gaming", precisely because the true words ARE less palatable. It's the motive to make more palatable, and thereby lie about the INHERENT unsavoriness or sadness of something, that makes euphemizing wrong and offensive. Please disregard if I am in error and commercial interests DO, indeed, have the right to rule all thought.76.8.67.2 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Erectile Dysfunction safe non-drug treatment

The Physician's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual proposed edition covers the subjects of Erectile Dysfunction (ED), as well as, Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD), and (Female Sexual Arousal Disorder (FSAD). Prescriptions and various substance remedies will alter the homeostatic balance of the body and may cause serious side effects. This does not have to be the case for people who wish to address these conditions safely and enjoy the normal human function of orgasm. Milan Polovich MD discusses treatments that are potentially dangerous and alternatively suggests a safe, economical modality as a solution. PLEASE WIKI-LINK to the non-explicit, informational website, ORGASMAXX.COM. This simple HTML/CSS website is authored by, Milan Polovich MD. The site has no RSS/plug-ins or social networking. It has no Rich media files, re-direction, or copywright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.238.5 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

kegel exercises

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.112.124 (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sound-Wave Treatment For Erectile Dysfunction

We are a UK based group of doctors, registered by the Care Quality Commission, and specializing in erectile dysfunction. The Care Quality Commission regulate, inspect and review all adult social care services in the public, private and voluntary sectors in England. These are our registration details http://www.cqc.org.uk/directory/1-223772591

We post the following article as we are getting calls about this new treatment and think that this information may be relevant and useful to readers.

Sound-Wave Treatment For Erectile Dysfunction

Tessmac9708 (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Efficacy and safety claims in Wikipedia medical articles are based on sources that conform to this guideline: WP:MEDRS - essentially (a) systematic reviews by independent subject experts published in high quality journals (b) graduate-level textbooks and (c) national and international practice guidelines. If (or once) rigorous studies of a treatment have been published, and those publications have been reviewed in (a), (b) or (c), then we can include a summary of such a review. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fact and Citation Check

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

Collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Background section:

The citation “http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8510302” is an article for which only the abstract is available. The following alternate citation is suggested:

The entire second paragraph and part of the third paragraph need citations. The following general resources are suggested to add citations to this and other sections:

The the citation “http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Erectile-dysfunction/Pages/Introduction.aspx?r=1&rtitle=Erectile+dysfunction+-+Introduction” did not contain the cited information. A suggested reference for general ED incidence (but not specific to the UK) would be the following:

This sentence “It is now mostly replaced by more precise terms” is vague and can be more specific, especially concerning the “more precise terms.”

The sentence “The study of erectile dysfunction within medicine is covered by andrology, a sub-field within urology” may need a citation, as it is not clear if this is common knowledge.

Signs and Symptoms section:

All information in bullet points in this section need citations; please see “Background section” regarding possible citations and the current incorrect NHS.uk citation, which is also used as a citation in this section.

The third bullet point seems like it belongs in “Causes” instead of “Signs and Symptoms.”

Causes section:

The information in the “Drugs” bullet point needs citations, and the referenced study in this section was undertaken in 1988, indicating that the information is out of date with regard to currently popular prescription medications. The following citation contains a great deal of information regarding drugs that may cause ED:

The citation http://health.msn.com/health-topics/sexual-health/mens-sexual-health/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100062424, referring to neurogenic disorders, is an MSN Health site and is not appropriate as a secondary source for a medicine-related Wiki. A suggested alternate reference is the following:

The section discussing hormonal disorders needs a citation. One suggested citation is the following:

The section discussing arterial disorders needs a citation. One suggested citation is the following:

The section discussing venous leak needs a citation. One suggested citation is the following:

The sections “Aging” and “Other disorders” are somewhat vague and need to be specified and cited.

Information regarding “negative feelings” was not found in the citation “http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/erectile-dysfunction/DS00162/DSECTION=causes. An appropriate citation may be found in the general references listed in the “Background” section above.

The cited information was not found in the citation “The Tobacco Reference Guide” http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/tobaccorefguide/ch12/ch12p1.htm. You may wish to change the wording to match the current information contained in the citation listed below.

Excessive use of internet porn has been linked with erectile dysfunction. Despite the lack of large scale studies, there are a growing number of forum's where thousands of young healthy males are sharing their stories of how excessive internet porn has caused erectile problems. www.yourbrainonporn.com/ (lots of great science about dopamine and the numbed pleasure response, I even think there should be a separate wikipedia article on porn-induced ED but i've only ever done grammar and other small wiki edits before. (--added by Chris Kendall--) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjkendall (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


The citation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15924009 is only available in abstract form. A suggested alternate citation for this and other citations regarding smoking is the following:

The citation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15753970 is only available in abstract form. An appropriate alternate reference would be one of several secondary and tertiary sources listed in the “Background” section above.

The following citations in this section are primary sources; secondary sources are needed to verify the information contained in them:

Since when has Wikipedia needed secondary sources to verify primary sources? A primary source is the source. Any secondary sources are superfluous. Could it be that the person desiring secondary sources is uncomfortable with the fact that removing parts of organs tends to make them not work as well? I mean, this is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.177.58 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was unable to find a comprehensive review regarding the effects of circumcision on erectile dysfunction; one of the general secondary or tertiary sources may be useful when combined with a revision of the text.

There are two, very new articles finding a high correlation from circumcision. I added those references yesterday, but the entry was reverted by Yobol with the notation "per medrs, new review" What does that mean? Frank Koehler (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a typo for "need review". WP:MEDRS strongly favours the use of secondary sources (eg., literature reviews) over primary sources (eg., individual studies). There are occasional exceptions to this, but what we certainly do not do is to cherry-pick primary sources supporting only one point of view (see WP:NPOV), so it shouldn't be surprising that your edit was reverted. Jakew (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it was a typo. Wikipedia should be sourced by secondary sources, not primary like the one originally added. Yobol (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The primary article investigating penis size vs. erectile dysfunction had only one review that cited it: http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v20/n6/full/ijir200814a.html. As this does not seem to fit with this article on erectile dysfunction, another secondary source may be needed to verify this information.

The section beginning with “Excessive alcohol use” needs a citation; however, it seems very informal and may not contribute to the medical knowledge contained in this article. You may wish to consider removing the section specifying “brewer’s droop” and “whiskey dick.”

The statements beginning with “A study in 2002 found that ED can also be associated with bicycling” seem to be referring to one specific study, not general knowledge about ED. If this information cannot be found in a secondary source, then it may need to be removed.

Pathophysiology section:

This section contains no citations. Some suggested citations are:

Diagnosis section:

This section contains only one citation, one that does not cover all of the information in the section. Some suggested citations are:

Treatment section:

The subheading "Future Treatments" is misspelled.

The citation http://www.annals.org/content/139/3/161.abstract is a primary source. One secondary source for the use of exercise as an ED treatment is the following:

The “Oral treatment” subheading has no citations. One suggested citation is the following:

The citation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11182341 is a primary source. The following citation is a secondary source of information about this drug:

The citation http://www.cmshc.ca/ does not contain the cited information. However, this information is available elsewhere on the site, following a different link. http://www.cmshc.ca/Education2.php seems to have the correct information.

This citation http://www.seekwellness.com/mensexuality/penile_implants.htm does not seem to be a reliable reference; however, the appropriate information is contained within the citation listed above, http://www.cmshc.ca/Education2.php.

As Zoraxel is not a current drug on the market to treat ED, its inclusion in this article may be premature. In addition, there are several issues surrounding its associated citations, outlined below.

The following citations are primary sources:

The citation http://www.rexahn.com/cms/index.php/portfolio/ is a company website and is not an appropriate reference for a medical Wiki.

The citation http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/149927.php gets its information from Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and is not an appropriate reference for a medical Wiki.

The citation http://www.palatin.com/products/bremelanotide.asp is a company website and is not an appropriate reference for a medical Wiki.

The citation http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/562177 lists the ingredients “niacin, zinc, ginseng root, ginkgo” as being a partial list of ingredients in the supplement Enzyte, but this fact is not mentioned in the Wiki text. Please clarify.

The following citations have some broken links and are primary sources:

History section:

Many citations are needed in this section, particularly regarding the early attempts at treatment in the Muslim world and the section on John R. Brinkley. Many websites found in a Google search have information that is identical to the information in this article, but no independent reputable sources were found.

The citation “A. Al Dayela and N. al-Zuhair (2006), "Single drug therapy in the treatment of male sexual/erectile dysfunction in Islamic medicine", Urology 68 (1), p. 253-254” has no active link. It also appears to be a primary source and thus is likely to be inappropriate as a reference for this Wiki.

The following references are primary sources:

Fact Check AMEF (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2012

I think you should include 'internet porn' as a cause for Erectile Dysfunction, here is a reliable, scientific resource that substantiates this: http://yourbrainonporn.com/ 85.191.125.15 (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2013

A major cause for modern ED is prolonged internet porn use. It happens since the brain is over sensitized to porn that it lost its sensitivity to real woman. The recovery time varies from 2 months to few years.reference http://yourbrainonporn.com/erectile-dysfunction-and-porn. 14.99.43.142 (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done, as we need to use sources reliable for medical claims. That source does not qualify. Yobol (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2013

A shocking new study found that porn is the cause for a new kind of erectile dysfunction. Reference: Dr. Oz show. hope this is a more reliable information. reference: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/can-porn-cause-erectile-dysfunction-pt-1 14.96.153.96 (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is another supporting source for porn induced ED http://www.medindia.net/news/Too-Much-Of-Porn-Could-Lead-To-Erectile-Dysfunction-86444-1.htm 14.96.153.96 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is another source on porn induced ED http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/02/25/scientists-internet-porn-cause-impotence/ 14.96.153.96 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
One request is sufficient thank you. Please format you request in a 'Change x to y format', thanks. Pol430 talk to me 14:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
For this to come into the article, it needs a source that complies with WP:MEDRS - neither Dr Oz nor Fox News complies. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, I'll bear it in mind if they ever come back. Pol430 talk to me 18:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 May 2013

The sentence "In all the three conditions (erectile dysfunction, coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular diseases), despite the epidemiological association with periodontitis, no causative connection has proved yet." (Under Causes) would be improved by changing it to "In all the three conditions (erectile dysfunction, coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular diseases), despite the epidemiological association with periodontitis, no causative connection has been proven yet." 181.31.233.146 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed, with this edit. Thanks. Begoon talk 09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

male impotence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamslee39 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

NSAIDs

I did my best to maintain NPOV in rewording and re-ref-ing this section. I'd have preferred to say that study which got so much publicity is total trash, with statistical holes you can drive a Mack truck through. I replaced the broken, badly constructed USA Today reference (the link was bad but the article is still there) with a ref to a longer, better article on MedScape. A MedPage Today article provided a quote from one of the authors on a critical point (did not show cause) that otherwise might have been construed as unsupported even though it's painfully obvious to those who know some statistics. ... good grief, they controlled for nine factors, but not for level of pain. Does anyone think MAYBE level of pain could just possibly cause both NSAID use and ED? OK, end of rant. For today. OK, would you believe until later this evening. Paleolith (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

Causes Drugs (anti-depressants (SSRIs[6]) and nicotine are most common) Neurogenic disorders[7] Cavernosal disorders (Peyronie's disease[8]) Psychological causes: performance anxiety, stress, mental disorders,[9] psychological problems, negative feelings.[10][not in citation given] Surgery[11] Aging. It is four times more common in men aged in their 60s than those in their 40s.[12] Kidney failure Diseases such as diabetes and multiple sclerosis (MS). While these two causes have not been proven they're likely suspects as they cause issues with both the blood flow and nervous systems. At least one paper has suggested that arsenic poisoning from contaminated well water may be a cause in some regions, perhaps by alteration of voltage gated potassium channels.[13] Lifestyle: smoking is a key cause of erectile dysfunction.[14][15] Smoking causes impotence because it promotes arterial narrowing.[16] See also Tobacco and health. Alcohol. Even small amounts of alcohol can have a depressive effect on the body's nervous system. Signals from the brain to the blood vessels in the penis are inhibited. As a result, you may experience decreased sexual desire or, if you manage to achieve an erection, you might find it won't last.[1]


Afaux (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It looks like the request is to add

Alcohol. Even small amounts of alcohol can have a depressive effect on the body's nervous system. Signals from the brain to the blood vessels in the penis are inhibited. As a result, you may experience decreased sexual desire or, if you manage to achieve an erection, you might find it won't last.

The source you have provided might be reliable enough for another topic, but for medical claims such as this one, you need to stronger sources as per WP:MEDRS Cannolis (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2015

History
An unhappy wife is complaining to the Qadi about her husband's impotence. Ottoman miniature.

During the late 16th and 17th centuries in France, male impotence was considered a crime, as well as legal grounds for a divorce. The practice, which involved inspection of the complainants by court experts, was declared obscene in 1677.[2]

John R. Brinkley initiated a boom in male impotence cures in the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s. His radio programs recommended expensive goat gland implants and "mercurochrome" injections as the path to restored male virility, including operations by surgeon Serge Voronoff.

Modern drug therapy for ED made a significant advance in 1983, when British physiologist Giles Brindley dropped his trousers and demonstrated to a shocked Urodynamics Society audience his papaverine-induced erection.[3] The drug Brindley injected into his penis was a non-specific vasodilator, an alpha-blocking agent, and the mechanism of action was clearly corporal smooth muscle relaxation. The effect that Brindley discovered established the fundamentals for the later development of specific, safe, orally effective drug therapies.[4][better source needed][5][better source needed]

Prior to ED being a treatable dysfunction, impotence had been a natural part of growing older in many cultures. The medical community used the bodily change as a platform to create a dysfunction that could be treatable with medication to gain from the profits of the new drug. [6] Asb1995 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Dr Fox". http://www.doctorfox.co.uk/news/helping-your-partner-overcome-erectile-dysfunction/. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
  2. ^ Roach, Mary (2009). Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. pp. 149–152. ISBN 9780393334791.
  3. ^ Klotz L (Nov 2005). "How (not) to communicate new scientific information: a memoir of the famous Brindley lecture". BJU Int. 96 (7): 956–7. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05797.x. PMID 16225508.
  4. ^ Brindley GS (October 1983). "Cavernosal alpha-blockade: a new technique for investigating and treating erectile impotence". Br J Psychiatry. 143 (4): 332–7. doi:10.1192/bjp.143.4.332. PMID 6626852.
  5. ^ Helgason AR, Adolfsson J, Dickman P, Arver S, Fredrikson M, Göthberg M, Steineck G (1996). "Sexual desire, erection, orgasm and ejaculatory functions and their importance to elderly Swedish men: a population-based study". Age Ageing. 25 (4): 285–291. doi:10.1093/ageing/25.4.285. PMID 8831873.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ Wentzell E. (2013) Aging Respectable by Rejecting Medicalization: Mexican Men’s Reasons for Not Using Erectile Dysfunction Drugs. Iowa City: American Anthropological Association.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 11:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Avanafil (Stendra, Spedra)

Dear All - would someone be able to add avanafil (brand name Stendra, Spedra) as an oral treatment. This agent is a recently launch PDE type-5 inhibitor for the treatment of ED.

Mark (I work for A.Menarini, the manufacturer)91.84.34.227 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Inguinal hernia

I wonder if an undiscovered hernia inguinalis is a common and underestimated cause of erectile dysfunctions. After years of sudden erectile problems and no diagnosis I had a hernia surgery last year. Since then my erectile problems disappeared although I did not expect any connection between both ailments. I have studied the anatomy since then a bit and came to the conclusion that the pressure in the abdomen due to the hernia may influence the ability to have an erection. Does anyone know about research about that connection? 92.225.139.103 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I experienced exactly the same! Zieren et al. published this in 2005: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2004.00983.x/pdf . This has to be added in here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.230.123 (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Association between Compulsive Sexual Behaviour (porn addiction) and Erectile Dysfunction

I want to raise the topic of porn and ED. I have seen that this topic has been raised three times before, but every time they've been told that there is not enough/reliable evidence. This ([1]) peer-reviewed study found that "On an adapted version of the Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale, CSB [Compulsive Sexual Behaviour] subjects compared to healthy volunteers had significantly more difficulty with sexual arousal and experienced more erectile difficulties in intimate sexual relationships but not to sexually explicit material". Obviously this does not prove causality, but I doubt that there have been studies proving causality for other causes mentioned in the Wikipedia article, such as bicycling. I understand that there is an obvious pathophysiological link between bicycling and ED, but if you read the above article, I think you will see a less obvious, but just as compelling link between the addictive brain changes (which is the focus of the study), desensitisation and ED. I think a compromise where you put a caveat that more research is needed to prove causality would be good, in a similar to where the article says that there is an "epidemiological association between chronic periodontitis (periodontal inflammation) and erectile dysfunction". Zinedine Socrates (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a growing elephant in the room and I'm looking forward to seeing PIED (porn-induced erectile dysfunction) added to this article. Heck, PIED may require an article of its own. Waqqashanafi (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2016

The section on "injections" is woefully inadequate. You write:


"Another treatment regimen is injection therapy. One of the following drugs is injected into the penis: papaverine, phentolamine, and prostaglandin E1.[20]:25"

This is incorrect. I know of no one injecting only papaverine or phentolamine. The usual therapy is all *three* of these drugs, in a formula called "Trimix." This must be made by a compounding pharmacy, and carefully titrated for each patient. It's true that Trimix is not available with a normal prescription...so docs prescribe FDA approved Caverject, which is prostaglandin E1 alone. This is not state-of-the-art therapy and often produces pain, which is why Trimix is a better option...it utilizes a much smaller dose of prostaglandin E1. Urologists know about Trimix, and are willing to take the time to carefully determine the dosage and instruct the patient how to do the injections, and order it from a compounding pharmacy.

Please do considerably more research into the injections. These can be a godsend for men with ED. The actual injection produces little or no pain (most men would not know or believe this, but it's true.) The results are extremely predictable and satisfying, without all the side effects of PDE-5 inhibitors. Here is one source for information:

http://www.sexhealthmatters.org/erectile-dysfunction/self-injection-erectile-dysfunction

Kazawolf (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Doidge and porn-induced ED

Here is the relevant quote:

Today young men who surf porn are tremendously fearful of impotence, or “erectile dysfunction” as it is euphemistically called. The misleading term implies that these men have a problem in their penises, but the problem is in their heads, in their sexual brain maps. The penis works fine when they use pornography. It rarely occurs to them that there may be a relationship between the pornography they are consuming and their impotence. (A few men, however, tellingly described their hours at computer porn sites as time spent "masturbating my brains out.")

I agree his main point has to do with changing tastes from pornography. But he pretty clearly states that these men have impotence, and that he believes it is linked to porn use. --Editor2286 (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

He is clear that there is nothing wrong with these men, physiology - you seem to be cherry-picking here to find a quote where he says "impotence." Men in this situtation are plenty potent. If you really want to go forward with something along these lines please provide a draft of the content you would like to include, and sourcing, so we can discuss it. If you cite a book please provide the page number. thx Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction#Delete or merge?. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I provided a page number with my cite (105). I don't see the problem with what I already wrote, here it is: "Notable psychiatrist Norman Doidge has attributed excessive pornography use as a cause of erectile dysfunction (pornography-induced erectile dysfunction).[2]". There are other psychological causes of ED already in the cause section, so I don't see the problem with psych vs. physio. --Editor2286 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to discuss anyone's doubts about the statement I added. I don't think a MEDRS would be necessary for the opinion of an individual. --Editor2286 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So here we are again

Recently, "Viewing of pornography", with references to

was removed from the Causes section for lack of "MEDRS-compliant" sources. I find this just a bit odd considering we present the entire Pathophysiology section with no sources at all, a condition that has persisted for nearly three years! This leads me to suspect that it is the nature of the claim itself, and not the sources supporting it, that has prompted the removal. Nonetheless, if we're going to insist on a strict interpretation of WP:MEDRS, only for any claims about porn causing ED, I may still be able meet that unreasonable burden of evidence. I have identified a book by an academic publisher, held by my local library, that may shed some light on this subject. I trust that if the book should say porn causes ED, I can cite it as a MEDRS-compliant reference. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DavidLeighEllis, you and others may also want to keep the Effects of pornography article in mind for improvement, an article that I recently brought to the attention of WP:MED, which I later noted on that article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have a copy of the book Media, children, and the family: social scientific, psychodynamic, and clinical perspectives by Zillmann et al. Although it contains a wealth of information about how the viewing of pornography causes addiction, paraphilias, and sexual violence, there's nothing about erectile dysfunction. Some of this content might be suitable for the above mentioned "Effects of pornography" article, though the article covers some of this ground already. This is an unfortunate result, since many men don't really care about whether pornography damages them, the performers, and the overall society, but do care very much if pornography viewing prevents them from getting an erection in a real-life sexual encounter. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The evidence is there. Even if it was not, should we not at least be saying that porn is a possible cause of erectile dysfunction? This would not do any harm and could potentially help a lot of people. [3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJC16 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like to mention that Florida Men’s Health Center is the state’s premiere health clinic for men. Specializing in all men’s health issues including Erectile Dysfunction they offer innovative treatments, you should read more about it at http://www.floridamenshealth.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:583:2:AD2D:2D46:7AB6:B048:EFE1 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of the external links relate to specific medications, most of which already have their own page. I'd like to move those links to those pages, so the only external links here would be the ones that discussed the broader topic of erectile dysfunction. Any objections? --Arcadian 11:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to discuss and add the following external link: http://content.msn.co.in/Contribute/Sports/UCStory811.htm This article, titled 'NPT - The Unknown Side of Erectile Dysfunction', is about a scientific but not much highlighted link between the absence of Nocturnal Penile Tumescence (NPT) and development of physiological Erectile Dysfunction. The necessity of having frequent erections for maintaining erectile function is discussed. It also highlights the link between testosterone levels and NPT, and how a low testosterone level thus indirectly contributes to ED. Also discussed is the connection between ejaculation frequency and testosterone levels, as well as holistic, non-proprietary, and non-commercial methods to restore testosterone levels and thus restore NPT and erectile function. Each of these aspects are independently verifiable from research studies published at PubMed. Healthbuff 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been doing research about Erectile dysfunction for a while and I found an article that is pretty interesting at this following URL: http://www.bathmatenordic.com/international/erectile.dysfunction.php

It is not an explination but talks more about what a person can do to prevent ED, anyway, worth a read and if anyone feels like it should be included in the External Link section I think it would be a good addition. --Agustsmari (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The content.msn.co.in link is a community/forum site, non-authoritative, and therefore inappropriate.
The bathmate link is highly inappropriate. That site exists to promote and sell products. It doesn't matter if they include some general questions and answers; those answers are not backed up by references, and that site can't be considered a reliable source. =Axlq 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erectile dysfunction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2017

Orcaman2000 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Injected medication Another treatment regimen is injection therapy. The following drug compound (Triple P) is injected into the penis: papaverine, phentolamine, and prostaglandin E1.[22]:25

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 03:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Causes

There is not a single word in the article on nicotine to indicate that there is any connection between the substance and erectile dysfunciton. Also, no source is given for this claim. It should either be supported by source material or removed. 91.205.36.176 (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added a {{citation needed}} tag to the claim for now, but perhaps it could be removed until a reliable reference is supplied. Deli nk (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

solutions available

solutions available please anyone tried 4 viagra — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCBOUNCIN (talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

Being circumcised should be mentioned as a possible cause of erectile dysfunction. The foreskin is a highly erogenous and lubricant part, and Viagra sales are extremely high in America, where circumcision is common.

  • I am not circumcised, and the foreskin feels very intensive for me.

And online sources:

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The key word here being "reliable". None of these sites have any chance of being considered reliable secondary sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources

The primary sources were removed from here[1] and the text was moved up under signs and symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Definition of Impotency

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impotent

The article says "Psychological impotence is where erection or penetration fails due to thoughts or feelings...." I suggest you make that a tad more grammatically clear. Instead of "is where" you could make it "happens when". We can't make that change, since you've locked the article. Will-o-the-west (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

Genericvillaaus (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —RainFall 06:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Foundations II 2019, Group 1a Goals

  1. I plan on looking into more of the treatment options for erectile dysfunction, both medications and alternative medication options.
  2. I also plan on expanding on psychological aspects of erectile dysfunction.
  3. Lastly, I will research different things that contribute to the development of erectile dysfunction.

Bschen12 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please make sure that your other group members assign themselves to this article, and make individual contributions. (added numbering formatting) Health policy (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Pornography does not cause ED

According to studies in 2015-2018 pornography does not cause ED.


Contrary to raising public concerns, pornography does not seem to be a significant risk factor for younger men's desire, erectile, or orgasmic difficulties.

Is Pornography Use Associated with Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions among Younger Heterosexual Men? Landripet I, Štulhofer A. Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25816904 (presented in article, [18])


VSS use within the range of hours tested is unlikely to negatively impact sexual functioning, given that responses actually were stronger in those who viewed more VSS.

Viewing Sexual Stimuli Associated with Greater Sexual Responsiveness, Not Erectile Dysfunction. Prause N, Pfaus J. Department of Psychiatry, University of California Los Angeles, CA, USA. Department of Psychology, Concordia University Montreal, QC, Canada.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26185674


In conjunction with prior literature, we conclude that there is little or no evidence of an association between mere pornography use and ED, consistent evidence of an association between self-reported problematic use and ED cross-sectionally, and no evidence of causal links between any pornography variables and ED.

Is Pornography Use Related to Erectile Functioning? Results From Cross-Sectional and Latent Growth Curve Analyses. Grubbs JB, Gola M. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA. Clinical Neuroscience Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, Institute for Neural Computations, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30621919 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.218.251 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Pornography does not cause ED

According to studies in 2015-2018 pornography does not cause ED.


Contrary to raising public concerns, pornography does not seem to be a significant risk factor for younger men's desire, erectile, or orgasmic difficulties.

Is Pornography Use Associated with Sexual Difficulties and Dysfunctions among Younger Heterosexual Men? Landripet I, Štulhofer A. Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25816904 (presented in article, [18])


VSS use within the range of hours tested is unlikely to negatively impact sexual functioning, given that responses actually were stronger in those who viewed more VSS.

Viewing Sexual Stimuli Associated with Greater Sexual Responsiveness, Not Erectile Dysfunction. Prause N, Pfaus J. Department of Psychiatry, University of California Los Angeles, CA, USA. Department of Psychology, Concordia University Montreal, QC, Canada.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26185674


In conjunction with prior literature, we conclude that there is little or no evidence of an association between mere pornography use and ED, consistent evidence of an association between self-reported problematic use and ED cross-sectionally, and no evidence of causal links between any pornography variables and ED.

Is Pornography Use Related to Erectile Functioning? Results From Cross-Sectional and Latent Growth Curve Analyses. Grubbs JB, Gola M. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA. Clinical Neuroscience Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland; Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, Institute for Neural Computations, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30621919 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.218.251 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Physical activities

Physical activities improve erectile function.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29661646 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27707739

Relationship between age and erectile dysfunction diagnosis or treatment using real-world observational data in the USA

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540144/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28032424

Of 19,833,939 men meeting inclusion criteria in the primary analysis, only 1,108,842 (5.6%) had an ED diagnosis or PDE5I prescription (mean [SD] age: 55.2 [11.2] years). Prevalence of ED diagnosis or treatment increased from age 18–29 years (0.4%) to 60–69 years (11.5%), then decreased in the 7th (11.0%), 8th (4.6%), and 9th (0.9%) decades. Men with ED diagnosis or treatment had a higher prevalence of any comorbidity (63.1% vs 29.3% for men without ED) and of each comorbid condition. In multivariate analyses, age was an independent risk factor for ED diagnosis or treatment. Sensitivity analysis provided consistent results.
In a real-world setting in the United States, the prevalence of ED diagnosis or PDE5I treatment is generally low, increases with age, decreases in very old men, and is associated with increased prevalence of comorbidities. Age is an independent risk factor for ED diagnosis or treatment after controlling for comorbidities.
The results of the current study were generally consistent with previously published results of real-world observational data.

This is the only research using real-world observational data with full data available I could find. All other researches include recall and non-response bias, coding errors, unclear questioning and self-reported symptoms versus EHR or claims-based diagnosis or treatment.

First sex intercourse

Age of first sex intercourse is not risk factor for ED.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6479078/

Age of first sex intercourse is not associated with ED and is not a risk factor for any sexual difficulties except sex infrequency.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25181334 https://www.academia.edu/26083684/Age_quality_and_context_of_first_sex_associations_with_sexual_difficulties

The prevalence of erectile problems during first intercourse is about 9 %, the prevalence of PE during first intercourse is about 29 %. Age of first sex intercourse has weak correlation with ED and PE. Positive parental attitudes and positive affective reactions were associated with less dysfunction.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19266379 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24182139

There is no significant connection between sexual dysfunctions or life satisfaction and time of first intercourse.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7636537_Context_counts_Long-term_sequelae_of_premarital_intercourse_or_abstinence

Condom-Associated Erection Problems (CAEP)

According to studies from 20% to 50% of men have condom-associated erection problems. Reasons include sex with more than one partner during the recall period, reported problems with condom fit and feel, lower motivation to use condoms, and attempts at condom application before having a full erection

A total of 479 men, 38.4% were classified in the no CAEP group, 13.8% as having CAEP during condom application, 15.7% as having CAEP during PVI, and 32.2% as having CAEP during both condom application and PVI. Men reporting any form of CAEP were significantly more likely than men reporting no CAEP to also report erection difficulties during sexual activity when not using condoms. Men who reported CAEP during PVI only or during both application and PVI scored significantly lower on the IIEF-5 than men without CAEP.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26279414
278 men responded; the mean age of the participants was 23.7 years; 37.1% of the men reported condom-associated erection loss on at least one occasion. Age and race/ethnicity were not associated with erection loss. In multivariate analysis, three significant statistical predictors were identified: low self-efficacy to use condoms; problems with 'fit or feel' of condoms; and having more than 3 sex partners during the previous 3 months.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17112437
Controlling for age, marital status, and having children, PDE5i users, compared with nonusers, were: three times more likely to report erection loss during sex while using a condom; almost five times more likely to report the condom slipped off during sex; and more than twice as likely to remove condoms before sex was over.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19453932
A total of 494 men participated. 19% reported that condom-associated erection problems during condom application occurred at least once, and 17.8% indicated erection difficulties occurred during sexual intercourse at least once in the past 2 months. Multivariate analyses identified that condom-associated erection problems were associated with reports of sex with more than one partner during the recall period, reported problems with condom fit and feel, lower motivation to use condoms, and attempts at condom application before having a full erection.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25475105
234 sexually active males aged 18-25 years were surveyed about erectile dysfunction (ED). 13% reported ED, but rarely discussed this with medical providers; 25% reported ED occurring with condom use. Six percent used ED medications, rarely under medical supervision, and often mixed with recreational drugs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16919814
WP:MEDRS problems which have been discussed at Talk:Masturbation#Some facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional information

In addition to the 2015 literature review (presented in the article) there is 2019 literature review

According to this literature review (link below) there is no association between pornography and any sexual dysfunctions

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6679165/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.118.185 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but MDPI does not pass WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
An exception could be made, given that the conclusions of this review confirm the conclusions of the previous one, a link to which is presented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.118.185 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not allowed. It is easier to publish in The Lancet than in Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Cases like these is why I've stated that not all literature reviews are created equally. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, this exactly example is not about the quality of the review but about the place it has been published in. It sounds like "this book is better because it has better ribbon on it" for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.118.185 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Prevalence | Relationship between age and erectile dysfunction diagnosis or treatment using real-world observational data in the USA

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540144/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28032424

Of 19,833,939 men meeting inclusion criteria in the primary analysis, only 1,108,842 (5.6%) had an ED diagnosis or PDE5I prescription (mean [SD] age: 55.2 [11.2] years). Prevalence of ED diagnosis or treatment increased from age 18–29 years (0.4%) to 60–69 years (11.5%), then decreased in the 7th (11.0%), 8th (4.6%), and 9th (0.9%) decades. Men with ED diagnosis or treatment had a higher prevalence of any comorbidity (63.1% vs 29.3% for men without ED) and of each comorbid condition. In multivariate analyses, age was an independent risk factor for ED diagnosis or treatment. Sensitivity analysis provided consistent results.
In a real-world setting in the United States, the prevalence of ED diagnosis or PDE5I treatment is generally low, increases with age, decreases in very old men, and is associated with increased prevalence of comorbidities. Age is an independent risk factor for ED diagnosis or treatment after controlling for comorbidities.
The results of the current study were generally consistent with previously published results of real-world observational data.

Can this be added to the "Prevalence" or "Epidemiology" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.196.154 (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540144/ [MEDLINE +]

(Redacted)

Why don't you add this information as erectile dysfunction diagnosis prevalence? 46.159.41.39 (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540144/ [MEDLINE +]

(Redacted)

Add this information as erectile dysfunction diagnosis prevalence 

46.159.236.9 (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: Blatant copyright violation per [2]. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You can write that by your own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.239.103 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make precise edits. This cannot be done as is because it's a copy/paste from a journal article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22348636/ https://www.publish.csiro.au/sh/Fulltext/SH11095

(Redacted)

Add an information about a condom-associated erection problems. 46.159.236.9 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:COPYPASTE and WP:COPYVIO. —KuyaBriBriTalk 02:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
You can write that by your own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.239.103 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make precise edits. This cannot be done as is because it's a copy/paste from a journal article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020

==Diagnosis prevalence==

According to medical data of about 19.8 millions of USA male citizen prevalence of erectile dysfunction diagnosis or PDE5I prescription is 0.4% for men in age 18–29, 2.5% for men in age 30–39, 7.1% for men in age 40–49, 11.3% for men in age 50–59, 12.8% for men in age 60–69, 9.3% for men in age 70–79, 2.5% for men in age 80–89.<ref>{{cite journal |first1=John P |last1=Mulhall |first2=Xuemei |last2=Luo |first3=Kelly H |last3=Zou |first4=Vera |last4=Stecher |first5=Aaron |last5=Galaznik |year=2016 |title=Relationship between age and erectile dysfunction diagnosis or treatment using real-world observational data in the USA |journal=International journal of clinical practice |volume=70(12) |pages=1012–1018 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540144/ |doi=10.1111/ijcp.12908 |pmid=28032424 }}</ref>

46.159.185.21 (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

When you have a problem in your request, different people immediately come running to point it out. And when you fixed the problem - no one. So funny.
 Done Thank you. See section Prevalence_of_medical_diagnosis - hako9 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. But the wording is inaccurate. The study includes people who have an erectile dysfunction diagnosis OR prescription for PDE5I. That means, the sample includes people with a diagnosis but without a prescription for PDE5I, reading your variation of wording I would think these people aren't included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.197.33 (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Please change the |answered= to "no" when the edit request needs to be reopened, as was the case here, or else editors will not be alerted that further edits are required. - hako9 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional text

The other day I was working on an article about the advertising campaigns of John R. Brinkley in the 1930s on the Mexican border-blasters and this brought to mind the barrage of commercials now going on TV from 4 manufacturers who all in one way or another are aiming at the male impotence market. So I checked to see what had been written to date and found 4 disconnected stubs and this article about impotence. I have not changed any text merely added text to date and removed my own duplicated comments that I have previously added to the stubs. I do not intend to add a lot more to this article but instead of creating 4 stubs and a bit of article it would be better to create one good article. If anyone has a better idea about any of this please feel free to add your own copy. MPLX/MH 06:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I object completely to this method of improvement. Those "4 disconnected stubs", as you characterize them, were Sildenafil (Viagra), Vardenafil (Cialis), Tadalafil (Levitra), and Enzyte -- and none (especially Sildenafil) are disconnected. Perhaps you should have checked before blanking their content and directing to Impotence. --Calton 09:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Aphrodisiac

Astonishingly I continue to be hounded by an Administrator who has deleted the recipe I placed for an Aphrodisiac. Aphrodisiacs are aimed at the psychological element of ED and include such herbs as Yohimbe and Celery. There are commercial treatments available too :"X-cite is an enhanced herbal viagra alternative for women. It contains several natural aphrodisiacs which work together to heighten sexual desire and improve sexual performance. " [3] The Number 13:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


This link to a commercial site is not to advertise the product but to show the link between aphrodisiacs and improved sexual performance. Previously my editing was deleted by someone who seems to think there is no such link. There are many many products on the market that claim to improve ED by acting as an aphrodisiac. AFAIK there is no 'viagra alternative or even viagra, that has been shown to work on women. The Number 17:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clinical Tests Text

The text concerning clinical tests comes from MediPrimer:ED Primer. As the copyright holder of that website, I authorize the use of this text under the GFDL as part of Wikipedia. User:Yashka78 19:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Hello

Can we please add an "anthropology" sub-heading after "history" and before "lexicology". Here is the paragraph I would like to add with reference below.


Anthropological research presents an alternative view of erectile ‘dysfunction’ as seen by some cultures, not as a disorder, but as a normal, and sometimes even welcome, sign of healthy aging. Wentzell’s study interviewing over 250 Mexican men in their 50’s and 60’s identified that “most simply did not see decreasing erectile function as a biological pathology”. Further, men described the decrease in erectile function “as an aid for aging in socially appropriate ways”. There was a common theme amongst the interviews that “respectable older men shifted their focus toward the domestic sphere in a “second stage” of life”. The study reports that these men were of a generation that held the attitude that “good men provided economically but pursued sex outside their marriage.” As they aged, decreasing erectile function acted as an aid to overcoming urges to infidelity and helping attain the ideal “second stage” of life. As an example, “a 56-year-old about to retire from the public health service said he would now “dedicate myself to my wife, the house, gardening, caring for the grandchildren—the Mexican classic.”” The view of erectile dysfunction as pathology to be treated was antithetical to the view these men held of themselves and their purpose at this stage of their lives.


[5]

Thank you Lookattheotherside (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That's a lot to add based on a single source, and looks to be WP:UNDUE ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

De Win

Hi, Zefr. De Win's opinion is relevant because of Jacobs, Tim; Geysemans, Björn; Van Hal, Guido; Glazemakers, Inge; Fog-Poulsen, Kristian; Vermandel, Alexandra; De Wachter, Stefan; De Win, Gunter (31 July 2021). "Is online pornography consumption linked to offline sexual dysfunction in young men? A multivariate analysis based on an international web-based survey. (Preprint)". JMIR Public Health and Surveillance. JMIR Publications Inc. doi:10.2196/32542. ISSN 2369-2960.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) That is passed as evidence for PIED by NoFap and similar groups. Conclusions: This prevalence of ED in young men is alarmingly high and the results of presented study suggest a significant association with PPC.

My reasoning: before establishing what it does say we have to establish what it doesn't say. What it does not say: higher porn consumption produces ED. What it does say: the idea of being porn addicted is correlated with ED. Anyway, I used WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV since it is a WP:PRIMARY study. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems too preliminary, unencyclopedic, and not yet WP:MEDRS-reviewed, in my opinion. Zefr (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Zefr: If it gets deleted, it gets deleted, I can live with that. However, it is a N=huge study and it won't be easy to ignore it. So, unless there are big methodological flaws and unless nofappers colluded to skew this study, it will become the gold standard in respect of PIED. People like Donald J. Hilton have an axe to grind against porn, produce amateurish research about it and are seen as outsiders. De Win is none of those three, generally speaking Belgian universities have high academic standards. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
A quite straightforward explanation is that pornography addiction is in reality the nocebo effect. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Relation to Andropause

I was suprised that there was no discussion of erectile dysfunction as having significant statistical correlation with age.

Then I realized that there's a whole article called andropause that discusses this aspect in great detail. There should definitely be prominent links between this ED page and the andropause page.

Searching around various websites, I found phrases like the following: http://familydoctor.org/109.xml Erectile dysfunction doesn't have to be a part of getting older. It's true that as you get older, you may need more stimulation (such as stroking and touching) to get an erection. You might also need more time between erections. But older men should still be able to get an erection and enjoy sex.

This kind of statement is clearly POV, and in my opinion doesn't belong on a website called "familydoctor.org", although this sort of POV should of course be mentioned as it is in the article. However, I feel that the conspicuous absence of statistical data on this page actually supports the kind of statement shown above, making this page a comprehensive Consumer's Reports for meatstick drugs, rather than a discussion of erectile dysfunction.

I don't know how to manage the licensing, know what info is copyrighted, etc., but we need a section on statistics and a link to andropause.

Some relevant links below.

Aug. 4, 2003: A new study shows that as men age they eventually will come face to face with erectile dysfunction (ED), commonly known as impotence. http://www.webmd.com/content/article/72/81524.htm

By age 45, most men have experienced erectile dysfunction at least some of the time. According to the Massachusetts Male Aging Study, complete impotence increases from 5% among men 40 years of age to 15% among men 70 years and older. Population studies conducted in the Netherlands found that some degree of erectile dysfunction occurred in 20% of men between ages 50 to 54, and in 50% of men between ages 70 to 78. http://www.medicinenet.com/impotence_ed/article.htm

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2021

According to Gunter de Win, a Belgian professor and sex researcher, "Put simply, respondents who watch 60 minutes a week and think they're addicted were more likely to report sexual dysfunction than those who watch a care-free 160 minutes weekly."

There was almost identical research a month before this one, with almost the same results. Add it to the paragraph.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34400111/

There was no evidence for an association between internet pornography use with erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, or sexual satisfaction. However, there were small to moderate positive correlations between self-perceived internet pornography addiction and erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation or sexual dissatisfaction.

There was also one published 2 years before, also with the same results. Should also be added to the paragraph.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621919/

Across all 3 samples, there was evidence of a positive, cross-sectional association between self-reported problematic use and ED, but no consistent association between mere use itself and ED.

85.174.204.173 (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Current paragraph already makes it clear and additions seem repetitive. But more importantly the text is a very close paraphrase of copyrighted text and can't be included in the article. --Hemanthah (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I mean - add citations, to make it clear that there are several research works with the same results, I think it's important. Text is for understanding the essence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.174.204.173 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done Thanks! --Hemanthah (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

Add to the "Causes" or "Signs and symptoms".

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Where have you found alteration? Alteration means change. I do not suggest any changes in existing information, I offer new information from the reliable source. Anyway I made a section below for discussion.

On first sexual experience

According to DSM-5 about 20% of men fear of erectile problems on their first sexual experience, whereas approximately 8% experienced erectile problems that hindered penetration during first sexual experience. Such erectile failure is related to having sex with a previously unknown partner, concomitant use of drugs or alcohol, not wanting to have sex, and peer pressure. Evidence regarding the persistence of such problems after the first sex attempt is minimal. Most of these problems remit without professional help, but some men may continue to have episodic problems.[6] 37.78.124.109 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Causes listed currently - stress, perf. anxiety - cover it already. Also DSM seems a bit too general a source for this particular page. --Hemantha (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
It's about statistics. So it does not matter if something another is already listed and DSM is a good source for statistics. I think it's important to know such information. Could be added to "epidemiology", but it (epidemiology) is in the section "treatment", so decide.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackieelsokkary, Bschen12, Stevenvpham, Ksucsf19. Peer reviewers: Sarahchongrx.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox expansion

I think the infobox could be expanded to include better information covering erectile function. We could use the article's content to find more information fit for there. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Did more expansions of infobox, but unsure about how the expansions went and whether they were steady and didn't break existing formatting. I tried fixing some references, but I am not very familiar with article structuring of medical articles. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Erectile dysfunction image

I'm not against removing this image (diagram of flaccid penis) from the article, since it does not directly display actual dysfunction about the penis, but is there an unambiguous image out there that would better portray erectile dysfunction? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Uncited material

Tommi is a friends of me. His mothers father has a dog and the dog did the dirty with Tommis frien nuolija now nuolija has erectile dysfunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.197.164.18 (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC) This page is a mess. Eight of the first 10 sentences make significant statements of "fact" with absolutely no citations:

"A penile erection is the hydraulic effect of blood entering and being retained in sponge-like bodies within the penis. The process is often initiated as a result of sexual arousal, when signals are transmitted from the brain to nerves in the penis. Erectile dysfunction is indicated when an erection is difficult to produce. There are various circulatory causes. The most important organic causes are cardiovascular disease and diabetes, neurological problems (for example, trauma from prostatectomy surgery), hormonal insufficiencies (hypogonadism) and drug side effects. Psychological impotence is where erection or penetration fails due to thoughts or feelings (psychological reasons) rather than physical impossibility; this is somewhat less frequent but often can be helped. Notably in psychological impotence, there is a strong response to placebo treatment. Erectile dysfunction, tied closely as it is about ideas of physical well being, can have severe psychological consequences."

Recommend you unlock so people can actually fix this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchGinsu (talk • contribs) 06:25, January 2, 2013

Differentiation between sex and gender

Besides many other articles, this article needs to be WP:CONSISTENT with sex-gender distinction. Erectile dysfunction is a pathological condition based on improper function of sex organs, and thus is based on sex, and not on gender. Such articles should not mention gender unless specifically required with good reason. — CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 11:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emoe2020 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Peytonmk (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emoe2020 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AveryLong5, MorganH2024, Whitneyaj, Callalily4.

— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emoe2020 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AveryLong5, MorganH2024, Whitneyaj, Callalily4.

— Assignment last updated by Arianamarievasquez (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0102419
  2. ^ Doidge, Norman (2007). The Brain That Changes Itself. Penguin Books. pp. 105.
  3. ^ list of studies linking use of porn to erectile dysfunction
  4. ^ presentation explaining how porn has caused erectile dysfunction in men and providing evidence for this
  5. ^ Wentzell E., Labuski C. (2020) Role of Medical Anthropology in Understanding Cultural Differences in Sexuality. In: Rowland D., Jannini E. (eds) Cultural Differences and the Practice of Sexual Medicine. Trends in Andrology and Sexual Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36222-5_2
  6. ^ DSM-5, Page 427
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erectile_dysfunction/Archive_1&oldid=1220211394"