Author
Geoff Hackett
Other affiliations: Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Good Hope Hospital
Bio: Geoff Hackett is an academic researcher from Aston University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Testosterone (patch) & Erectile dysfunction. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 48 publications receiving 2553 citations. Previous affiliations of Geoff Hackett include Manchester Academic Health Science Centre & Good Hope Hospital.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University1, National University of Singapore2, University of Buenos Aires3, University of California, San Francisco4, University of Miami5, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine6, University of Western Ontario7, Mayo Clinic8, Johns Hopkins University9, Duke University10, Karolinska University Hospital11, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki12, Tulane University13, Erasmus University Rotterdam14, London Bridge Hospital15, Istanbul University16, Rush University Medical Center17, Georgia Regents University18, University of Florence19, Deakin University20, Cleveland Clinic21, University of Milan22, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center23, Concordia University Wisconsin24, Valparaiso University25, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey26, Maimonides Medical Center27, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich28, Rambam Health Care Campus29, Emory University30
TL;DR: Specific evaluation, treatment guidelines, and algorithms were developed for every sexual dysfunction in men, including erectile dysfunction; disorders of libido, orgasm, and ejaculation; Peyronie's disease; and priapism.
993 citations
Mayo Clinic1, Brown University2, University of Minnesota3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill5, St Lukes Episcopal Hospital6, University of California, San Francisco7, Tufts University8, Good Hope Hospital9, University of Southern California10, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey11, University of Milan12, SUNY Downstate Medical Center13, Cornell University14, Maimonides Medical Center15, University of Manchester16
TL;DR: The Panel's recommendations build on those developed during the first and second Princeton Consensus Conferences, first emphasizing the use of exercise ability and stress testing to ensure that each man's cardiovascular health is consistent with the physical demands of sexual activity before prescribing treatment for ED, and second highlighting the link between ED and CVD, which may be asymptomatic and may benefit from cardiovascular risk reduction.
Abstract: The Princeton Consensus (Expert Panel) Conference is a multispecialty collaborative tradition dedicated to optimizing sexual function and preserving cardiovascular health. The third Princeton Consensus met November 8 to 10, 2010, and had 2 primary objectives. The first objective focused on the evaluation and management of cardiovascular risk in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) and no known cardiovascular disease (CVD), with particular emphasis on identification of men with ED who may require additional cardiologic work-up. The second objective focused on reevaluation and modification of previous recommendations for evaluation of cardiac risk associated with sexual activity in men with known CVD. The Panel's recommendations build on those developed during the first and second Princeton Consensus Conferences, first emphasizing the use of exercise ability and stress testing to ensure that each man's cardiovascular health is consistent with the physical demands of sexual activity before prescribing treatment for ED, and second highlighting the link between ED and CVD, which may be asymptomatic and may benefit from cardiovascular risk reduction.
384 citations
University of Miami1, University of São Paulo2, London Clinic3, Deakin University4, SUNY Downstate Medical Center5, University of Buenos Aires6, Mayo Clinic7, University of California, San Diego8, Tulane University9, Erasmus University Rotterdam10, University of L'Aquila11, Chonnam National University12, Albert Einstein College of Medicine13, Valparaiso University14, Case Western Reserve University15, University of California, San Francisco16, Sapienza University of Rome17, University of Malaya18
TL;DR: It is suggested that the prevalence of premature ejaculation is considerably lower than previously thought and that ongoing research will lead to a more complete understanding of the pathophysiology as well as new efficacious and safe treatments for this sexual dysfunction.
370 citations
TL;DR: A meta-analysis on the effect of TS on male sexual function and its synergism with the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) found that TS could be associated with an improvement in PDE5i outcome, but these results were not confirmed in placebo-controlled studies.
199 citations
TL;DR: A comprehensive evidence-based guideline has been developed that is highly relevant for primary and secondary care professionals enabling them to work within the unique requirements of the UK healthcare system.
165 citations
Cited by
More filters
TL;DR: Men and women who rated their health as being poor were less likely to be sexually active and, among respondents who were sexually active, were more likely to reportSexual problems are frequent among older adults, but these problems are infrequently discussed with physicians.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Despite the aging of the population, little is known about the sexual behaviors and sexual function of older people. METHODS We report the prevalence of sexual activity, behaviors, and problems in a national probability sample of 3005 U.S. adults (1550 women and 1455 men) 57 to 85 years of age, and we describe the association of these variables with age and health status. RESULTS The unweighted survey response rate for this probability sample was 74.8%, and the weighted response rate was 75.5%. The prevalence of sexual activity declined with age (73% among respondents who were 57 to 64 years of age, 53% among respondents who were 65 to 74 years of age, and 26% among respondents who were 75 to 85 years of age); women were significantly less likely than men at all ages to report sexual activity. Among respondents who were sexually active, about half of both men and women reported at least one bothersome sexual problem. The most prevalent sexual problems among women were low desire (43%), difficulty with vaginal lubrication (39%), and inability to climax (34%). Among men, the most prevalent sexual problems were erectile difficulties (37%). Fourteen percent of all men reported using medication or supplements to improve sexual function. Men and women who rated their health as being poor were less likely to be sexually active and, among respondents who were sexually active, were more likely to report sexual problems. A total of 38% of men and 22% of women reported having discussed sex with a physician since the age of 50 years. CONCLUSIONS Many older adults are sexually active. Women are less likely than men to have a spousal or other intimate relationship and to be sexually active. Sexual problems are frequent among older adults, but these problems are infrequently discussed with physicians.
1,866 citations
1,650 citations
University of Alabama at Birmingham1, University of South Florida2, Vanderbilt University3, City of Hope National Medical Center4, Fox Chase Cancer Center5, University Of Tennessee System6, Brigham and Women's Hospital7, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance8, Case Western Reserve University9, Roswell Park Cancer Institute10, Northwestern University11, Harvard University12, University of Nebraska Medical Center13, University of Utah14, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center15
TL;DR: This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
1,545 citations
TL;DR: The analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.
Abstract: Background
Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor’s product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update using more stringent methodology and also investigating sponsorship of device studies.
Objectives
To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.
Search methods
We searched MEDLINE (1948 to September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 4, 2010) and Web of Science (August 2011). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.
Selection criteria
Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.
Data collection and analysis
Two assessors identified potentially relevant papers, and a decision about final inclusion was made by all authors. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals).
Main results
Forty-eight papers were included. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, risk ratio (RR): 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21 to 1.44), harms results RR: 1.87 (95% CI: 1.54 to 2.27) and conclusions RR: 1.31 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.44) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Ten papers reported on sponsorship and effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data. The results were heterogeneous; five papers found larger effect sizes in industry sponsored studies compared with non-industry sponsored studies and five papers did not find a difference in effect size. Only two papers (including 120 device studies) reported separate data for devices and we did not find a difference between drug and device studies on the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.23). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment and follow-up. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.65), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01).
Authors' conclusions
Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.
1,095 citations
TL;DR: The updated version of 2009 European Association of Urology guidelines on ED and PE are presented to present, summarising the present information onED and PE.
1,062 citations