Talk:Erectile dysfunction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

A[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

Additional text[edit]

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[edit]

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. " [1] 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)

Move![edit]

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

Clinical Tests Text[edit]

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)

External links[edit]

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)

Relation to Andropause[edit]

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

Normal? - Please expand[edit]

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.

External links[edit]

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)

Inaccuracy[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the article[edit]

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)

Giles Brindley's use of injections in "History"[edit]

There is an error in this section. The drug Brindley injected was phenoxybenzamine, not phentolamine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiesdad (talkcontribs) 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)

Blueberries[edit]

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)

Definition of Impotency[edit]

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

Inguinal hernia[edit]

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)

Fact and Citation Check[edit]

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

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

Problem text[edit]

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[edit]

A review which we could us to improve this article:

  1. Albersen M, Mwamukonda KB, Shindel AW, Lue TF (January 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.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Groups[edit]

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]

{{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]

{{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[edit]

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)

Erectile Dysfunction safe non-drug treatment[edit]

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[edit]

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

Sound-Wave Treatment For Erectile Dysfunction[edit]

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)

Edit request on 26 October 2012[edit]

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)

Uncited material[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 06:25, January 2, 2013

Edit request on 13 April 2013[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Fixed, with this edit. Thanks. Begoontalk 09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Doidge and porn-induced ED[edit]

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).[1]". 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[edit]

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)

NSAIDs[edit]

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)

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

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 ([2]) 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014[edit]

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.[3]


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

Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)

  1. ^ Doidge, Norman (2007). The Brain That Changes Itself. Penguin Books. pp. 105. 
  2. ^ http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0102419
  3. ^ "Dr Fox". http://www.doctorfox.co.uk/news/helping-your-partner-overcome-erectile-dysfunction/.