4.0 Article

Age-related prevalence of low testosterone in men with spinal cord injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 32-39

出版社

MANEY PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1179/2045772313Y.0000000122

关键词

Spinal cord injuries; Testosterone replacement therapy; Paraplegia; Tetraplegia; Aging

资金

  1. Rehabilitation Research & Development (RR& D) Center of Excellence for the Medical Consequences of Spinal Cord Injury [B2648C, B9212C]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research & Development Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe the relationship of advancing age in persons with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) on the prevalence of low testosterone in men with SCI compared to historical normative data from able-bodied men in the general population. Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. Two hundred forty-three healthy, non-ambulatory outpatient men with chronic SCI from age of 21 to 78 years were included in this retrospective analysis. Results: Forty-six percent of men with SCI were identified as having low serum total testosterone concentrations (total testosterone <11.3 nmol/l). The age-related decline in SCI for total serum testosterone concentration was 0.6%/year compared to 0.4%/year in the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. Between the third and eighth decade of life, men with SCI had a 15, 39, 50, 53, 58, and 57% prevalence rate of low serum total testosterone, which is higher than values reported for each decade of life for able-bodied men in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study on Aging. Conclusion: Compared with the general population, low serum total testosterone concentration occurs earlier in life in men with SCI, at a higher prevalence by decade of life, and their age-related decline in circulating total testosterone concentration is greater. Studies of T replacement therapy in men with SCI should assist in determining the possible functional and clinical benefits from reversing low serum total testosterone concentration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据