Setting of a scoring criterion for effectiveness index in patients with premature ejaculation
Bin, Y1; Hongjun, L1
1: Peking Union Medical Hospital, China
Objective: To establish a scoring criterion in judging therapeutic effectiveness of PE management.
Material and Methods: The consensus panel on PE consists of a multidisciplinary group of clinicians in China, including andrologists, urologists and a statistician. Members of this panel have been selected based on their expertise and to represent the professionals treating patients suspected of suffering from PE. Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during five group meetings and multiple email communications.
Results: All members of this panel reached a consensus of the scoring criterion for effectiveness index in patients with premature ejaculation. The scoring criterion has 23 points, and includes four items: (1)Intra-vaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT) (4 points); (2)Distress of the patients with PE and their female partners (9 points); (3)Improvements in controlling the ejaculation process (4 points); and (4) Patients’ and their female partners’ self-judgments (6 points). The points are positively associated with patients’ treatments effects in each item. Points increased more than 14 indicate a significant improvement after PE treatment. Improvements in IELT are quantified in patients with PE in item-1. When a slightly increased, doubled, threefold and more than three folds IELT will score 1, 2, 3 and 4 points respectively. In item-4, both patients and their female partners are required to give answers, and the scores ratio in male patients and female partners are 2 to 1. The final scores of item 4 are calculated by the sum of the male patients’ and their female partners’ scores. A high score indicates that the couples are satisfied with the treatment effects.
Conclusions: We have successfully established a scoring criterion for effectiveness index in patients with premature ejaculation, which can provide information in guiding clinical practitioner’s treatment. Further studies were required for assessing the efficiency of this scoring system.
Work supported by industry: no.Go Back