Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Premature Ejaculation Profile: validation of self‐reported outcome measures for research and practice

Patrick, Donald L., Giuliano, François, Ho, Kai Fai, Gagnon, Dennis D., McNulty, Pauline, Rothman, Margaret·2009·BJU International

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Premature Ejaculation Profile (PEP), a self‐reported outcome instrument for evaluating domains of PE and its treatment, comprised of four single‐item measures, a profile, and an index score. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Data were from men participating in observational studies in the USA (PE, 207 men; non‐PE, 1380) and Europe (PE, 201; non‐PE, 914) and from men with PE (1238) participating in a phase III randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trial of dapoxetine. The PEP contains four measures: perceived control over ejaculation, personal distress related to ejaculation, satisfaction with sexual intercourse, and interpersonal difficulty related to ejaculation, each assessed on five‐point response scales. Test‐retest reliability, known‐groups validity, and ability to detect a patient‐reported global impression of change (PGI) in condition were evaluated for the individual PEP measures and a PEP index score (the mean of all four measures). Profile analysis was conducted using multivariate analysis of variance. RESULTS: All PEP measures showed acceptable reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.66 to 0.83) and mean scores for all measures differed significantly between PE and non‐PE groups ( P < 0.001). Men who reported a reduction in PE with treatment in the phase III trial had significantly greater scores on each of the four measures. The PEP profiles of men with and without PE differed significantly ( P < 0.001) in both observational studies; higher levels of PGI were associated with higher PEP profiles ( P < 0.001). The PEP index score also showed acceptable reliability and was significantly different between the PE and non‐PE groups ( P < 0.001). Men who reported an improvement in PE with treatment in the phase III trial had significantly greater PEP index scores. In the phase III trial, nausea was the most common adverse event with dapoxetine. CONCLUSION: The PEP provides a reliable, valid, and interpretable measure for use in monitoring outcomes of men with PE.

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 · 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2008.08041.x

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 163

Metadata

Authors
Patrick, D. L., Giuliano, F., Ho, K. F., Gagnon, D. D., McNulty, P., & Rothman, M.
Venue
BJU International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-01-16
Volume
103
Issue
3
Pages
358-364
ISSN
  • 1464-4096 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-410X
OpenAlex
W1979070058
Cited by
163
References
2
FWCI
5.85
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 Premature Ejaculation Profile: validation of self‐reported outcome measures for research and practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2008.08041.x
The paper
Patrick, D. L., Giuliano, F., Ho, K. F., Gagnon, D. D., McNulty, P., & Rothman, M. (2009). The Premature Ejaculation Profile: validation of self‐reported outcome measures for research and practice. BJU International. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2008.08041.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.