Protocol detail

International Index of Erectile Function

Find Similar Protocols

The International Index of Erectile Function was developed and validated by Rosen et
al^{14 (link)}, with the purpose to
create a short and reproducible questionnaire to measure the erectile function that
is culturally, linguistically and psychometrically valid. The instrument could also
be used by doctors and researchers in therapeutic clinical trials as another
assessment parameter of efficacy/effectiveness for the several interventions
currently proposed²². It is worth
noting that IIFE was developed for exclusive use in relationship between men and
their partners^{26 (link)}.
The questionnaire consists of 15 questions, grouped in five domains: erectile
function, orgasm, sexual desire, sexual satisfaction and general satisfaction. Each
question has a value ranging from 1 to 5, and the sum of the answers results in the
final score for each domain, with low values indicating a bad quality sex life.
Capelleri et al^{26 (link)} suggest the ED
can be classified in five categories, as of the erectile function domain, ranging
from a minimum score of 6 to a maximum of 30, for sexually active patients, according
to Table 2.

Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol.
The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link: Access Free Full Text.

Gonzáles A.I., Sties S.W., Wittkopf P.G., de Mara L.S., Ulbrich A.Z., Cardoso F.L, & de Carvalho T. (2013). Validation of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIFE) for Use in Brazil. Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 101(2), 176-182.

Publication 2013

Doctors Erectile Orgasm Patients Satisfaction Sexual desire Sexual satisfaction Therapeutic

Top 5 similar protocols

Protocol cited in 9 other protocols

Variable analysis

independent variables

Not explicitly mentioned

dependent variables

Erectile function
Orgasm
Sexual desire
Sexual satisfaction
General satisfaction

control variables

Not explicitly mentioned

positive controls

None mentioned

negative controls

None mentioned

Annotations

Based on most similar protocols

Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.

As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!