Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Research
  • Published:

Impact of various questionnaires on the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. The ENIGMA-study

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 16, pages 214–219 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

The prevalence estimates of erectile dysfunction (ED) vary considerably across studies. These differences may be attributed to used definitions of ED. Quantitative data on the effect of different definitions of ED on the prevalence are lacking, because precise information on the used definition and questionnaire is often absent. Aim of this study was to quantify the effect of using different questionnaires for ED on the prevalence estimates. In all, 5721 mail surveys on sexual problems and ED were sent to all men (aged>18 y) in 12 general practices in the middle of the Netherlands of which 2117 were completed. The questionnaire contained Enigma (WHO), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), Cologne Erectile Inventory (KEED) and one question (Boxmeer, Krimpen). The prevalence of ED based on the various questionnaires and the effect of these questionnaires on risk factor relationships was compared. IIEF gave the highest age specific and overall ED prevalence, KEED the lowest. The difference in prevalence was 16.8%. The agreement (kappa coefficient) between the various ED definitions varied from 0.52 (IIEF & KEED) to 0.95 (Enigma & Boxmeer). The number of risk factor relations were similar for the Dutch studies, reduced for the IIEF and KEED. This study provides evidence that differences in questionnaires to assess ED have a considerable effect on the (age specific) prevalence estimates and little on the risk factor relations. The number of questions of the survey appears not to be responsible for differences in the prevalence of ED and risk factor relations, however they affect the response rate. Uniform use is strongly recommended, since a ‘golden standard’ for ED assessment (by questionnaire) is lacking. A short questionnaire with one or two questions is recommended for example the one from the Boxmeer-study. These data may be used to adjust (age-specific) prevalence rates comparing ED prevalence in the open population across studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boer LJ de et al. Prevalence and risk factors of erectile dysfunctions in the general population: a critical appraisal, J. Epidem, in press.

  2. Prins J et al. Prevalence of erectile dysfunctions: a systematic review of population-based studies. Int J Impot Res 2003; 14: 422–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McKinlay JB et al. International differences in the epidemiology of male erectile dysfunction. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 1999; 102: 35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Melman A, Gingell -JC . The epidemiology and pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction. J Urol 1999; 161: 5–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bortolotti A, Parazzini F, Colli E, Landoni M . The epidemiology of erectile dysfunction and its risk factors. Int J Androl 1997; 20: 323–334.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Spector IP, Carey MP . Incidence and prevalence of sexual dysfunctions: a critical review of the empirical literature. Arch Sex Behav 1990; 19: 389–408.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewis RW . Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin N Am 2001; 28: 209–216, vii.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. The NIH consensus panel. NIH-consensus on erectile dysfunction. JAMA 1993; 270: 83–89.

  9. Wagner G et al. Erectile dysfunction (WHO). 1st International consultation on Erectile Dysfunction (WHO, ISSIR, SIU) 1999.

  10. Rosen RC . Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory for urology. Urology 1996; 47: 782–783.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosen RC et al. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC . The sexual health inventory for men (IIEF-5): reply to Vroege. Int J Impot Res 2000; 12: 342–343.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vroege JA . The sexual health inventory for men (IIEF-5): reply to Cappelleri and Rosen. Int J Impot Res 2000; 12: 297–298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. O'Leary MP et al. A brief sexual function inventory for urology. Urology 1995; 14: 697–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Day D, Ambegaonkar A, Harriot K, McDaniel A . A new tool for predicting erectile dysfunction. Adv Ther 2001; 18: 131–139.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Braun M et al. Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction: result of the ‘Cologne Male Survey’. Int J Impot Res 2000; 12: 305–311.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Corty EW, Althof SE, Kurit DM . The reliability and validity of a sexual functioning questionnaire. J Sex Marital Ther 1996; 22: 27–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Blanker MH et al. Erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction in a community-based sample of men 50 to 78 years old: prevalence, concern, and relation to sexual activity. Urology 2001; 57: 763–768.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bosch R et al. Erectile dysfunction in a community-based sample of men aged 50–74 years: prevalence and somatic and social factors. Eur Urol 1999; 35(Suppl 2): 66.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Meuleman EJH et al. Erectiestoornis: prevalentie en invloed op de kwaliteit van leven; het Boxmeer-onderzoek. [Erectile dysfunction: prevalence and influanece on the quality of life. The Boxmeer study]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2001; 145: 576–581.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rudolf M, Backer de G, Kostler M, Meyer de JM . Prevalence and correlates of erectile dysfunction in a population based study in Belgium. Eur Urol 2002; 41: 132–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosen RC, Capelleri JC, Gendrano N . The international Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a state-of-the-science review. Int J Impot Res 2002; 14: 226–244.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    B J de Boer, M L Bots, H M Pieters & Th J M Verheij

  2. Department of Urology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    A A B Lycklama a Nijeholt

  3. General Practitioner, Rosmalen, The Netherlands

    J P C Moors

Authors
  1. B J de Boer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M L Bots
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A A B Lycklama a Nijeholt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J P C Moors
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H M Pieters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Th J M Verheij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B J de Boer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Boer, B., Bots, M., Lycklama a Nijeholt, A. et al. Impact of various questionnaires on the prevalence of erectile dysfunction. The ENIGMA-study. Int J Impot Res 16, 214–219 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901053

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901053

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links