Talk:Erectile dysfunction

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.234.238.5 (talk) at 23:18, 13 February 2012 (→‎Erectile Dysfunction safe non-drug treatment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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. " [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!

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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

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)

External links

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Definition of Impotency

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

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)[reply]

Fact and Citation Check

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

Edit request on 31 December 2011

Hi, there is a lot of clinical trial data at http://www.erectiledysfunctionclinics.co.uk/news/ed-medicines/ You probably can summarize the conclusion and present on wiki.

49.205.156.169 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please request edits to protected pages only when you've specified what exact text needs to be replaced, what the exact replacement is, and why the change needs to be made. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 06:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erectile_dysfunction&oldid=476735682"