The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Priapism: Pathogenesis, Epidemiology, and Management
Abstract
Introduction: Priapism describes a persistent erection arising from dysfunction of mechanisms regulating penile tumescence, rigidity, and flaccidity. A correct diagnosis of priapism is a matter of urgency requiring identification of underlying hemodynamics. Aims: To define the types of priapism, address its pathogenesis and epidemiology, and develop an evidence-based guideline for effective management. Methods: Six experts from four countries developed a consensus document on priapism; this document was presented for peer review and debate in a public forum and revisions were made based on recommendations of chairpersons to the International Consultation on Sexual Medicine. This report focuses on guidelines written over the past decade and reviews the priapism literature from 2003 to 2009. Although the literature is predominantly case series, recent reports have more detailed methodology including duration of priapism, etiology of priapism, and erectile function outcomes. Main Outcome Measures: Consensus recommendations were based on evidence-based literature, best medical practices, and bench research. Results: Basic science supporting current concepts in the pathophysiology of priapism, and clinical research supporting the most effective treatment strategies are summarized in this review. Conclusions: Prompt diagnosis and appropriate management of priapism are necessary to spare patients ineffective interventions and maximize erectile function outcomes. Future research is needed to understand corporal smooth muscle pathology associated with genetic and acquired conditions resulting in ischemic priapism. Better understanding of molecular mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of stuttering ischemic priapism will offer new avenues for medical intervention. Documenting erectile function outcomes based on duration of ischemic priapism, time to interventions, and types of interventions is needed to establish evidence-based guidance. In contrast, pathogenesis of nonischemic priapism is understood, and largely attributable to trauma. Better documentation of onset of high-flow priapism in relation to time of injury, and response to conservative management vs. angiogroaphic or surgical interventions is needed to establish evidence-based guidance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
King, S. H., Hallock, M., Strote, J., & Wessells, H. (2005) · Urology · doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.02.019 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Broderick, G. A., Kadioglu, A., Bivalacqua, T. J., Ghanem, H., Nehra, A., & Shamloul, R.
- Venue
- The Journal of Sexual Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-01-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1_Part_2
- Pages
- 476-500
- ISSN
- 1743-6095 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-6109
- OpenAlex
- W2108325728
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.77
- 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
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.