Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content
Fig. 3 | Basic and Clinical Andrology

Fig. 3

From: The relationship between four types of premature ejaculation patients and the quality of residential environment

Fig. 3

The combined box plots of data characteristics in PREQIs scale. T-test was used to analyze the difference between the premature ejaculation group and the control group, The four kinds of premature ejaculation were compared using a one-way ANOVA. A: The total ATS score of PE patients was greater than that of the control group (p < .05); B: The total GS score of patients was significantly lower than that of the control group (p < .001); C: The total CS score of patients was lower than that of the control group (p < .01); D-I: In terms of ATS, GS, CS, WS, EH and MC, male patients with different PE subtypes also have significant differences. PE: premature ejaculation, LPE: lifelong PE, APE: acquired PE, VPE: variable PE, SPE: subjective PE, ATS: Architectural and Town-planning Spaces, GS: Green Spaces, WE: Welfare services, EH: Environmental health, MC: Maintenance care. *: p < .05, **: p < .01, ***: p < .001

Back to article page

Basic and Clinical Andrology

ISSN: 2051-4190