Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 440

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The prevalence of Peyronie's disease: results of a large survey

Schwarzer, U., Sommer, F., Klotz, T., Braun, M., Reifenrath, B., Engelmann, U.·2001·BJU International

Abstract

Objectives To determine the prevalence of Peyronie's disease, a localized connective tissue disorder of the penile tunica albuginea, the symptoms of which include palpable plaque, painful erections and curvature of the penis, in a large sample of men in Germany. Subjects and methods A standardized questionnaire was sent to 8000 male inhabitants (age range 30–80 years) of the greater Cologne area (≈ 1.5 million inhabitants). Three questions about the self‐diagnosis of Peyronie's disease were previously assessed for validity on 158 healthy men and 24 patients with confirmed Peyronie's disease. To optimize the response rate, the questionnaire was mailed three times to all the men. Results The response rate after the third mailing was 55.4% (4432 men); 142 men (3.2%, mean age 57.4 years, sd 13.4) reported the new appearance of a palpable plaque which, from the previous validation, was the most sensitive question and the main symptom of the disease. In men aged 30–39 years only 1.5% reported localized penile induration, compared with 3.0% in those 40–49 and 50–59 years, 4.0% in those 60–69 years and 6.5% of those > 70 years old. Newly occurring angulation was reported by 119 of the 142 men (84%) and painful erection by 66 (46.5%). The combination of the three symptoms (plaque, deviation and painful erection) was reported by 46 of the 4432 respondents (1.04%), i.e. 32% of the 142 men with penile induration; 58 of the 142 men (41%) reported erectile dysfunction. Conclusions This is the first large cross‐sectional, community‐based study to examine the prevalence of Peyronie's disease. Using previously validated questions the prevalence of Peyronie's disease in the sample was 3.2%; this is much higher than indicated in previous reports. A comparably high prevalence is reported for diabetes and urolithiasis, suggesting that this ‘rare’ disease is more widespread than previously thought.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.02436.x

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1007/BF02085410 · doi:10.1007/bf02085410
  2. 10.1055/s-2008-1060431 · doi:10.1055/s-2008-1060431
  3. Alth G, 1984, Zur Klassifikation der Induratio penis plastica (Peyronie's disease), Wiener Klin Wochenschr, 96, 854
  4. Ludvik W, 1968, Die Radiumbehandlung der induratio penis plastica, Z Urol Nephrol, 61, 319
  5. 10.1055/s-2008-1065304 · doi:10.1055/s-2008-1065304
  6. Hauck EW, 1999, Induratio penis plastica. Peyronie's disease, Akt Urol, 30, 386

Cited by

See all 440

Metadata

Authors
Schwarzer, U., Sommer, F., Klotz, T., Braun, M., Reifenrath, B., & Engelmann, U.
Venue
BJU International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-11
Volume
88
Issue
7
Pages
727-730
ISSN
  • 1464-4096 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-410X
OpenAlex
W1847662742
Cited by
440
References
19
FWCI
4.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The prevalence of Peyronie's disease: results of a large survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.02436.x
The paper
Schwarzer, U., Sommer, F., Klotz, T., Braun, M., Reifenrath, B., & Engelmann, U. (2001). The prevalence of Peyronie's disease: results of a large survey. BJU International. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.02436.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.