For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
56
views
67
references
 Top references
cited by
15
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      391
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Epidemic of COVID-19-Related Erectile Dysfunction: A Scoping Review and Health Care Perspective.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          COVID-19 infection is expected to be associated with an increased likelihood of erectile dysfunction (ED). Considering the high transmissibility of COVID-19, ED may be a concerning consequence for a large segment of the population.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)
          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 9135 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Neurologic Manifestations of Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China

            Ling Mao, Huijuan Jin, Mengdie Wang … (2020)
            The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, is serious and has the potential to become an epidemic worldwide. Several studies have described typical clinical manifestations including fever, cough, diarrhea, and fatigue. However, to our knowledge, it has not been reported that patients with COVID-19 had any neurologic manifestations.
            Article 0 comments Cited 3364 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Zachary Munn, Micah D J Peters, Cindy Stern … (2018)
              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Article 0 comments Cited 2504 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Sex Med Rev
                Title: Sexual medicine reviews
                Publisher: Elsevier BV
                ISSN (Electronic): 2050-0521
                ISSN (Print): 2050-0521
                Publication date (Electronic): Apr 2022
                Volume: 10
                Issue: 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. Electronic address: t7hsieh@health.ucsd.edu.
                [2 ] Health Services Consulting Corporation; Boxborough, MA, USA.
                [3 ] Health Economics and Market Access; Boston Scientific Corporation; Marlborough, MA, USA.
                [4 ] Global Health Economics & Market Access, Women's Health & Prosthetic Urology-Men's Health; Boston Scientific Corporation, Urology Pelvic Health Division; Marlborough, MA, USA.
                [5 ] Department of Urology, James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; Baltimore, MD, USA.
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S2050-0521(21)00077-9
                DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2021.09.002
                PMC ID: 8450276
                PubMed ID: 34732316
                SO-VID: f91d7a38-3e49-4e02-b65e-13f08400f605
                History

                Keywords: COVID-19,Scoping Review,Mental Health,Men's Health,Erectile Dysfunction,Biological
                Data availability:
                Keywords: COVID-19, Scoping Review, Mental Health, Men's Health, Erectile Dysfunction, Biological

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content391

                See all similar

                Cited by15

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,444

                See all reference authors