Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Institute of Andrology, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom; Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
J Sex Med. 2021 Mar;18(3):433-439. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.11.012. Epub 2021 Feb 27.
Penile length measurement techniques vary widely in published studies leading to inaccurate and nonstandardized measurements.
To review the methodology used to report data in studies evaluating penile length and provide a detailed recommendation in conducting future high-quality research.
The MEDLINE database was searched for randomized clinical trials and open-label prospective or retrospective studies.
The panel reviewed the modality of data reporting on these specific areas: patients' age and assessment, patient position, type of measurement instrument used, penile length technique description, examination conditions, and actual examiner.
Overall, 70 studies investigating penile length were selected; among these, 72.85% included at least 50 patients: 16 prospective studies, 5 randomized clinical trials, and 49 retrospective cross-sectional studies. Amongst all studies, 90% reported to measure penile length by health care practitioners in clinical settings. Penile length was assessed in all 70 studies, whereas penile girth was measured in 57.14% of patients. A semi-rigid ruler was the most commonly used measurement aid to assess penile length/girth in 62.86% of studies. Penile measurements were reportedly obtained: (i) stretched state, 60%; (ii) flaccid state only, 52.68%; and (iii) during erection, 27.43%. All studies investigating the penile length in an erect state were simultaneously assessing penile length in the flaccid state. About 90% of studies investigated penile length in adults, whereas 10% were conducted in adolescents.
The use of shared methodology to assess penile length in both adults and adolescents allows more accurate and standardized measurements.
STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: A systematic review of the published literature allowed proper data interpretation in order to provide accurate recommendations. Main limitations of the study relied on a relatively limited number of databases for the identification of potentially eligible studies.
The methodology used in studies measuring penile length should be precise and standardized in order to provide accurate data to both clinicians and researchers. Cakir OO, Pozzi E, Castiglione F, et al. Penile Length Measurement: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations, a Systematic Review. J Sex Med 2021;18:433-439.
在已发表的研究中，阴茎长度测量技术差异很大，导致测量结果不准确且不标准。
回顾评估阴茎长度的研究中报告数据所采用的方法，并就如何开展高质量的未来研究提供详细建议。
检索 MEDLINE 数据库，纳入随机临床试验和开放标签前瞻性或回顾性研究。
专家组对以下具体方面的数据报告模式进行了评估：患者年龄和评估、患者体位、使用的测量仪器类型、阴茎长度技术描述、检查条件和实际检查者。
共纳入 70 项研究，其中 72.85%（51 项）至少纳入 50 例患者：16 项前瞻性研究、5 项随机临床试验和 49 项回顾性横断面研究。所有研究均由临床医生在临床环境中评估阴茎长度，70 项研究均测量了阴茎长度，57.14%的患者测量了阴茎周长。62.86%的研究中最常使用半刚性标尺评估阴茎长度/周长，52.68%的研究仅在疲软状态下测量，60%的研究在拉伸状态下测量，27.43%的研究在勃起状态下测量。所有研究均同时在勃起状态下评估阴茎长度，52.68%的研究仅在疲软状态下评估阴茎长度，60%的研究在拉伸状态下评估阴茎长度。90%的研究调查了成人的阴茎长度，10%的研究调查了青少年的阴茎长度。
采用相同的方法评估成人和青少年的阴茎长度，可以进行更准确和标准化的测量。
本研究对已发表文献进行了系统评价，以便对数据进行准确解读，从而为临床医生和研究人员提供准确的数据。该研究的主要局限性在于，确定潜在合格研究的数据库相对较少。
为了向临床医生和研究人员提供准确的数据，测量阴茎长度的研究应采用精确且标准化的方法。
