Study key eligibility criteria: measurement of penis size by a health professional using a standard procedure; a minimum of 50 participants per sample. Exclusion criteria: samples with a congenital or acquired penile abnormality, previous surgery, complaint of small penis size or erectile dysfunction. Synthesis methods: calculation of a weighted mean and pooled standard deviation (sd) and simulation of 20 000 observations from the normal distribution to generate nomograms of penis size.

Results

Nomograms for flaccid pendulous [n = 10 704, mean (sd) 9.16 (1.57) cm] and stretched length [n = 14 160, mean (sd) 13.24 (1.89) cm], erect length [n = 692, mean (sd) 13.12 (1.66) cm], flaccid circumference [n = 9407, mean (sd) 9.31 (0.90) cm], and erect circumference [n = 381, mean (sd) 11.66 (1.10) cm] were constructed. Consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which ranged from r = 0.2 to 0.6. Limitations: relatively few erect measurements were conducted in a clinical setting and the greatest variability between studies was seen with flaccid stretched length.

Conclusions

Penis size nomograms may be useful in clinical and therapeutic settings to counsel men and for academic research.

Introduction

The measurement of penis size may be important either in the assessment of men complaining of a small penis or for academic interest. Men may present to urologists or sexual medicine clinics with a concern with their penis size, despite their size falling within a normal range. This type of concern is commonly known as ‘small penis anxiety’ 1 or ‘small penis syndrome’ 2. Some men who are preoccupied and severely distressed with the size of their penis may also be diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), where the preoccupation, excessive self‐consciousness and distress is focussed on their penis size or shape 3, 4. The diagnosis of BDD or small penis anxiety excludes 2.28% of the male population who are abnormally small as less than 2 standard deviations (sds ) below the mean 5.

Several studies have measured penile size in various samples. Some authors have tabulated studies of penile size 6-13. Two studies have produced a nomogram for their samples 9, 11. A nomogram is a graphical representation of the numeric relationship between two variables. Such a tool may be a helpful for clinicians to counsel men who desire to know where they lie within a normal distribution or to establish one's change in size percentile following a procedure claiming size augmentation. Building such a nomogram may also be of academic interest, e.g. to investigate the discrepancy between individuals perceived and actual penis size; or to investigate the relationship between condom failure and penile dimensions 14. However, there have been no formal systematic reviews of penile size measurements and no attempts to combine the existing data into a definitive nomogram for flaccid and erect penile length and circumference (or ‘girth’). Therefore the aim of the present study was to create such nomograms of male penis size measurements across all ages and races, and to conduct a narrative review of the correlations reported. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) method of reporting was used 15.

Methods

Eligibility Criteria

Studies were included if there was agreement of two of the authors:

Quantitative measurement of penis size was measured by a health professional.
The sample included a ≥50 participants.
Participants were aged ≥17 years.
A mean and sd of the sample size measurements were provided.
Flaccid or erect length was measured from the root (pubo‐penile junction) of the penis to the tip of the glans (meatus) on the dorsal surface, where the pre‐pubic fat pad was pushed to the bone.
Flaccid stretched length was measured as above while maximally extending the penis.
Flaccid or erect circumference (or ‘girth’) was measured at the base or mid‐shaft of the penis, (and not from the corona).
They were published in the English language.

Studies were excluded if there was any possible bias in penis size measurements, caused by the study samples or the measurement procedure, such as if participants within the study sample had:

Any congenital or acquired penile abnormality (e.g. Peyronie's disease, hypospadias, intersex, hypospadias, phimosis, penile cancer, previous penile or prostatic surgery).
A complaint of small penis size or seeking augmentation.
Erectile dysfunction 8, 16.
A self‐measurement reading rather than a measurement taken by a health professional 17.
Measurements made from cadavers.

Information Sources

Ovid Medline, Embase and PsychINFO were used to obtain separate literature searches up to March 2014. The results from the three databases were subsequently collated and duplicates removed. In addition, the authors inspected the reference sections of relevant papers retrieved through the database search.

The search strategy was:

Penis/
(Penis OR penile OR phallus OR genital*).mp
1 OR 2
Organ size/
Size OR girth OR measurement OR length OR circumference OR dimension*
4 OR 5
3 AND 6

Study Selection

The title and abstract of retrieved studies were screened by one author according to perceived relevance. The full‐text articles of relevant studies were then reviewed by two authors and only included if they met the study inclusion and exclusion eligibility criteria.

Data Collection Process

All full text articles were reviewed for inclusion by at least two of the authors.

Data Item

Data extracted from each study included the authors; publication date; population studied; race; the number of participants (n); mean and sd of the age and range of participants; the measurement procedure; the mean, sd and range of (i) flaccid length, (ii) stretched flaccid length, (iii) erect length, (iv) flaccid circumference of the shaft, and (v) erect circumference of the shaft at either the base or the mid‐point but not under the glans.

Risk of Bias in Individual Studies

Studies followed a penis size measurement procedure described by Wessells et al. 5. None of the studies had used inter‐rater reliability when taking measurements. Some described training procedures to ensure consistency between different raters 6. Some described repeated measures used to ensure accuracy 18. None of the studies describe details on how they recruited their samples, e.g. how many refused to participate, in order to determine whether or not they were representative of the population recruited.

Summary Measure

The principal summary measures were the n, mean and sd for each of the measurements described.

Synthesis of Results

To construct penis size nomograms a weighted mean (by the number of men in each study) and pooled sd were calculated. Using the overall weighted mean and sd, 20 000 observations were simulated from the normal distribution to generate the nomograms. The cumulative normal distribution for each dimension gave population percentiles based on penis length (flaccid, stretched flaccid and erect) and girth (flaccid and erect). All nomograms were generated and edited in the package ggplot2 in R v.30.

Risk of Bias across Studies

Where there were more than two studies reporting one of the five types of penis size measurement, the ratio of between study variance to total variance (intraclass correlation, ICC) was calculated as an index of heterogeneity of studies. High ratios of between‐study variance would indicate measures are is less reliable for a particular measurement dimension.

Results

Study Selection

Figure 1 provides a flowchart of the systematic search and the number of studies that were screened for eligibility and subsequently excluded or included in the final review.

**Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

PRISMA flowchart of the studies included in the final review.

Study Characteristics

The characteristics of all studies extracted for inclusion are shown in Table 1 5-10, 12, 13, 16, 18-28.

Table 1. Studies included in the nomograms

Study	Population	Country	n	Age, years mean (sd) {range}	Reported measurement details	Flaccid length, cm mean (sd) {range}	Stretched length, cm mean (sd) {range}	Erect length, cm mean (sd) {range}	Flaccid circumference, cm mean (sd) {range}	Erect circumference, cm mean (sd) {range}
Ajmani et al. 1985 18	Medical students	Nigeria	320	n/a {17–23}	One examiner recorded measures several times. Room temperature. Circumference mid‐shaft.	8.16 (0.94)	n/a	n/a	8.83 (0.02)	n/a
Aslan et al. 2011 7	Military volunteers	Turkey	1132	20.3 (0.9) {19–30}	One examiner. Room temperature. Standing with the penis held parallel to the floor.	9.3 (1.3)	13.7 (1.6)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Awwad et al. 2004 8	Urology outpatients	Jordan	271	44.6 (16.3) {17–83}	Two examiners. Lying down, legs slightly abducted. Measuring tape. Circumference at mid‐shaft.	9.3 (1.9) {4.0–15}	13.5 (2.3) {7.5–20}	n/a	8.9 (1.5) {2.0–12}	n/a
Bondil et al. 1991 19	Urology patients	France	905	53 (18.19) {17–91}	A flexible centimetre ruler.	10.74 (1.84)	16.74 (2.29)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Choi et al. 2011 21	Urology in‐patients	Korea	144	57.3 (16.5) {21–89}	One examiner. Under anaesthesia. Lying down, legs slightly abducted. Measuring tape.	7.7 (1.7) {4.0–12.0}	11.7 (1.9) {7.5–17.0}	n/a	n/a	n/a
Chrouser et al. 2013 6	Circumcision patients	Tanzania	253	{19–47}	Under local anaesthesia. Circumference at mid‐shaft. Ruler.	n/a	11.5 (1.6)	n/a	8.7 (0.9)	n/a
Kamel et al. 2009 16	Urology outpatients	Egypt	949	36 (10.9) {17–60}	Rigid ruler.	n/a	12.9 (1.9)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Khan et al. 2012 9	Urology outpatients (n = 499) and surgery (n = 110)	Scotland, UK	610	43 {16–90}	Two examiners. Room temperature. Lying down, legs adducted.	10.2 (1.4)	14.3 (1.68)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Mehraban et al. 2006 23	Volunteers	Iran	1500	29.61 (5.50) {20–40}	Circumference at mid‐shaft. Rigid measuring tape.	n/a	11.58 (1.45) {7.5–19.0}	n/a	8.66 (1.01) {4.4–13.5}	n/a
Ponchietti et al. 2001 10	Volunteers	Italy	3300	n/a {17–19}	One examiner. Circumference at mid‐shaft. Measuring tape.	9 (2.0)	12.5 (2.5)	n/a	10 (0.75)	n/a
Promodu et al. 2007 12	Sexual dysfunction clinic	India (Kerala)	301	31.58 (6.38) {18–60}	Three examiners. Circumference at mid‐shaft.	8.21 (1.44) {4.5–13}	10.88 (1.42) {6.5–16}	12.93 (1.63) {10.5–17}	9.14 (1.02) {6–12.5}	11.49 (1.04) {9–13.5}
Savoie et al. 2003 20	Pre‐radical prostatectomy patients	USA	124	59.1 (7.4) {42–76}	Pre‐anaesthesia. Circumference at mid‐shaft.	9.3 (2.0) {5–15}	17.5 (2.6) {7.5–21}	n/a	9.4 (1.4) {5.5–13}	n/a
Schneider et al. 2001 25	Volunteers	Germany	111	n/a {18–19}	A ruler.	8.60 (1.50) {5–14.5}	n/a	14.48 (1.99) {10–19}	n/a	n/a
Sengezer et al. 2002 26	Volunteers	Turkey	200	21.2 {20–22}	Measuring tape and a straight edged ruler.	6.80 (0.08) {4–9}	8.98 (0.09) {6.5–12.5}	12.73 (0.11) {9.5–17}	n/a	n/a
Shalaby et al. 2014 27	Volunteers	Egypt	2000	31.6 (4.2)	Standing holding penis parallel to floor	n/a	13.84 (1.35) {12–19}	n/a	n/a	n/a
Siminoski et al. 1993 22	Volunteers	Canada	63	39.6 (12.4) {27–71}	No further details.	n/a	9.4 (1.4) {6–13.5}	n/a	n/a	n/a
Söylemez et al. 2011 13	Volunteers	Turkey	2276	21.1 (3.1) {18–39}	Standing. Circumference at mid‐shaft. A ruler.	8.95 (1.04) {6–15}	13.98 (1.58) {9–20}	n/a	8.89 (0.86) {6.5–13.5}	n/a
Spyropoulos et al. 2005 24	Urology patients	Greece	52	25.9 (4.4) {19–38}	One examiner. Room temperature. Lying down, legs adducted. Circumference at base of shaft. Measuring tape.		12.18 (1.7) {9–17.5}	n/a	8.68 (1.12) {6–11}	n/a
Tomova et al. 2010 28	Volunteers
	Group 2	Bulgaria	310	17	Circumference base‐shaft. Measuring tape.	9.15 (1.07)	n/a	n/a	9.46 (0.95)	n/a
	Group 3		310	18		9.07 (1.05)			9.23 (0.94)
	Group 4		310	19		9.56 (1.12)			9.67 (0.91)
Wessells et al. 1996 5	Urology patients	USA	80	54 (14.37) {21–82}	One examiner. Circumference at mid‐shaft.	8.85 (2.38) {5–15.5}	12.45 (2.71) {7.5–19}	12.89 (2.91) {7.5–19}	9.71 (1.71) {6.5–13}	12.30 (1.31) {9–16}
Totals and mean (sd) or {range}	–	–	15521	{17–91}	–	9.16 (1.57)	13.24 (1.89)	13.12 (1.66)	9.31 (0.90)	11.66 (1.10)

n/a, not available.

Risk of Bias across Studies

The ratio of between study variance to total variance (ICC) was relatively low for erect length (0.2), flaccid girth (0.21) and flaccid length (0.26) but was somewhat larger for stretched length (0.58). For the latter, two studies 19, 20 had a mean stretched flaccid length of >16 cm and two had a mean of <10 cm. This suggests there may be greater unreliability in the measure of flaccid stretched length.

Synthesis of Results

A nomogram was constructed for each key variable: flaccid, flaccid stretched and erect length in Figure 2, and flaccid and erect girth in Figure 3. The mean and sd for each of the measures are shown at the bottom of Table 1. The ratios between the mean of each of the domains is found in Table 2. Of note is that the mean stretched length and erect length were near identical and that mean flaccid length and circumference was near identical.

**Figure 2**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Nomogram for flaccid, flaccid stretched and erect length of the penis.

**Figure 3**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Nomogram for flaccid and erect girth of the penis.

Table 2. Ratios between the mean of each dimension

Penile measurement	Flaccid length	Flaccid stretched length	Erect length	Flaccid circumference	Erect circumference
Flaccid length	–	1.44	1.43	1.01	1.27
Flaccid stretched length	0.69	–	0.99	0.70	0.88
Erect length	0.69	1.0	–	0.71	0.89
Flaccid circumference	0.98	1.42	1.41	–	1.25
Erect circumference	0.79	1.13	1.12	0.8	–

Correlation with Somatometric Parameters

Several papers investigated the relationship between penile dimensions and somatometric parameters. The main findings are summarised below.

Height and flaccid length

One study 7 found flaccid length to be moderately significantly correlated with height (r = 0.32) and three studies 10, 21, 22 found weak correlations (r = 0.19–0.2). However, two studies 8, 21 reported no significant correlation between flaccid length and height.

Height and stretched flaccid or erect length

Aslan et al. 7 found height to be moderately significantly correlated with stretched length (r = 0.61); four studies 10, 12, 22, 23 found a weak correlation with erect or stretched length (range r = 0.21–0.31).

Flaccid length and weight or body mass index (BMI)

One study 7 found a moderately significant correlation between flaccid length and weight (r = 0.40) and BMI (r = 0.39) and one 12 found a weak significant correlation (weight r = 0.21 and BMI r = 0.24). One study 21 found no correlation between penile length and weight or BMI. Lastly, one study 10 found a weak inverse significant correlation (r = −0.14 and −0.24).

Erect or stretched flaccid length and weight or BMI

One study 12 found erect length to be weakly significantly correlated with BMI (r = 0.24). Two studies 7, 12 found weak significant correlations between flaccid stretched length and weight or BMI (r = 0.21 and 0.27). One study 21 found no correlation between penile length and weight or BMI. However, one study 10 found stretched length to have a significantly weak inverse correlation with weight and BMI (r = −0.14 and −0.17).

Digit ratio

One study 23 found a weak significant correlation between penile length and index finger length (r = 0.23), whilst one study did not 21. However, the latter found a significantly weak inverse correlation between stretched penile length and the ratio between the length of second to fourth digit (r = −0.22).

Testicular volume

One study 7 found a weak significant correlation (r = 0.14) between testicular volume and flaccid and stretched penile length whereas one did not 24.

Foot size

One study 22 found stretched length to be significantly weakly correlated with foot size (r = 0.27) and one study 29 did not find a correlation between penile length and foot size.

Age

Seven studies 5, 7-9, 21, 22, 24 found no significant correlation between age and penile size. Two studies 13, 23 reported that age was weakly positively correlated with flaccid circumference (r = 0.05 and 0.19, respectively) but not flaccid length. Schneider et al. 25 found a small group of younger men (aged 18–19 years) to be significantly smaller in their flaccid length and erect circumference but not erect length compared with a group of men aged 40–68 years.

Summary

All the correlations between penile dimensions and somatometric parameters were either inconsistent or weak. The most consistent and strongest significant correlation was between flaccid stretched or erect length and height, which was found in four studies and ranged from r = 0.21 to 0.31 and in one study was 0.61.

Discussion

In all, 20 studies, with up to 15 521 males, meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were found. Five definitive nomograms for the flaccid and erect penis size measurements with a mean and sd were created. Strengths of the present review are that strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were used and there was (modest) homogeneity in the studies. Consistent weak but significant correlations between height and stretched flaccid or erect size were found. However, correlations with other somatometric parameters were either inconsistent or weak.

Wessels 5 suggested that beyond 2 sds below the mean should define a candidate for penile augmentation (2.28% of the male population), which we found was <6 cm in the flaccid length and <9.5 cm in the stretched length. A micropenis, however, is defined as <2.5 sds below the mean (0.14% of the male population), which was <5.2 cm in flaccid and <8.5 cm in the stretched length.

Stretched flaccid length appears to be an excellent estimate of erect penile length, which for some individuals presenting to clinical settings, may indicate that it may not be necessary to measure erect length as well as flaccid size. However, there was greater variability in the measures, which suggests less reliability. This was found by Chen et al. 30 who reported that a minimal tension force of ≈450 g during stretching of the penis was required to reach a full potential erection length and that the stretching forces exerted by a urologist in their clinical setting were experimentally shown to be significantly less than the pressure required. This may account for a discrepancy observed in three out four of our present studies in Table 1, which measured stretched and erect length simultaneously and found that the erect length was longer than the stretched flaccid length. There is therefore a greater risk of bias in measuring the stretched length if insufficient pressure is applied and the greatest need for training and measuring inter‐rater reliability.

It is not possible from the present meta‐analysis to draw any conclusions about any differences in penile size across different races. Lynn 31 suggest that penis length and girth are greatest in Negroids (sub‐Saharan Africans), intermediate in Caucasoids (Europeans, South Asians and North African), and smallest in Mongoloids (East Asians), but this is based upon studies that did not meet our present inclusion and exclusion criteria. The greatest proportion of the participants in the present meta‐analysis were Caucasoids. There was only one study of 320 men in Negroids and two studies of 445 men in Mongoloids. There are no indications of differences in racial variability in our present study, e.g. the study from Nigeria was not a positive outlier. The question of racial variability can only be resolved by the measurements with large enough population being made by practitioners following the same method with other variables that may influence penis size (such as height) being kept constant. Future studies should also ensure they accurately report the race of their participants and conduct inter‐rater reliability.

Herbenick et al. 32 found from their self‐report data of 1661 men, a mean erect penile length of 14.15 cm and a mean erect penile circumference of 12.23 cm. This is about 1 cm larger than the mean erect length and 0.6 cm larger than that the mean circumference from our nomograms. This might be dismissed as the unreliability or bias of self‐report but they argue that their sample was more accurate, as the data were reported anonymously over the internet and were motivated to obtain a condom that fitted their erect penis. Their data also suggest that the mode of getting an erection may influence erect penile dimensions (e.g. being with a sexual partner at the time of the measurement) and that this may be more accurate than self‐stimulation especially in a clinical setting.

Limitations

All the studies included in the present review described a standardised procedure for measuring penile size. However, temperature, level of arousal, and previous ejaculation could also affect the penile dimensions. There is potential risk of bias in the measurement of penis size, although there was little evidence of heterogeneity in the studies. There were considerably more flaccid measurements than erect, with only four studies (n = 692) measuring erect length and only two studies (n = 231) measuring erect circumference. Our present nomograms do not reflect the relative uncertainty (or number of men) that contributed to each estimate of weighted mean and pooled sd. Flaccid length and girth may for example be less reliable measures and more dependent on the temperature of their surroundings, the level of arousal and the professional measuring. We recommend future studies report their method in greater detail with a system for training of the practitioner(s) and the inter‐rater reliability. We recommend privacy in an air‐conditioned consulting room at a constant temperature (21 °C) at sea level. Using a disposable tape measure, a participant should have three parameters measured in the flaccid state: circumference (girth) of the penile mid‐shaft; length from suprapubic skin to distal glans (skin‐to‐tip); and pubis to distal glans (bone‐to‐tip). In the flaccid state, a stretched measurement can be recorded, by grasping the glans and exerting a stretching force until a participant feels mild discomfort to obtain maximum stretch 33. If possible, a participant should not have ejaculated in the previous 24 h. Erect measurement may be reported either after self‐stimulation and watching pornography alone or induced by a prostaglandin injection. Further research is required to determine whether erect measurements in naturalistic settings with a sexual partner may be associated with a larger erect measure.

It is acknowledged that some of the volunteers across different studies may have taken part in a study because they were more confident with their penis size than the general male population. Confidence to take part in size measurements may bias the measures to the larger end of the distribution. Equally there may be a bias towards the smaller end of the distribution if the full stage of genital development had not been reached in some men who had not reached the age of 18 years (or individual maturity), although this may depend on nutritional status and culture 18, 34. The greatest proportion of participants were Caucasian and Middle Eastern men. Therefore, it is not possible from the present meta‐analysis to draw any conclusions about any differences in penile size across different cultures.

Conclusions and Future Research

The nomograms may be helpful clinically and in research to determine the discrepancy between what a man perceives to be their position on the nomogram and their actual position. Thus, Mondaini et al. 11 found that 48 men (71.7%) with small penis anxiety ‘seemed to be reassured about their normal penile size after a thorough explanation during the visit’. However, 50% of men might interpret being less than average as being defective or abnormal. Comparing one's self or one's attributes against others is a ‘double‐edged sword’ 35 and may confirm perceived inadequacy. It is especially problematic in those with body image problems. Some may understand that by definition, half the population must be below average in a normal distribution. What is not known is if those above the 50th percentile were more likely to be reassured and satisfied than those below the mean and whether those below 50th percentile are more likely to remain anxious or dissatisfied. This could be answered by a randomised controlled trial in which men with BDD or small penis anxiety are randomly allocated to either: (i) being told their percentile measure compared with others or (ii) being told they are in the normal range without being given their percentile.

A nomogram may also be used to investigate the tendency for humans to view themselves as better than average (self‐enhancement) and to hold a positive bias for socially valued dimensions 36, 37. Thus, one might hypothesise that men without any concerns about their penile size have ‘rose‐tinted glasses’ and estimate their size to be larger than they actually are on a nomogram. However, this remains to be investigated. Furthermore, men with penis size anxiety or BDD may have lost their ‘rose‐tinted glasses’. In addition, such men are likely to believe that others think that they should be larger. If this hypothesis were accepted, then the finding could contribute to tailoring of the psycho‐education of men with small penis anxiety.

An important observation also comes from Lever et al. 38 who found in a large internet survey of 52 031 heterosexual men and women, 85% of women were satisfied with their partner's penis size, but only 55% of the men were satisfied with their own penis size. Thus, only 15% of women say that erect penis size is important and erect girth is generally more important than length 39. It is not known how many of the 15% of women were also partnered with a man who also thought he was too small. Such preferences may also be different in the homosexual community.

Measurement of penile size is of course only one aspect of assessment of men with small penis anxiety or a micropenis. Equally as important is male genital image satisfaction 40-42; an understanding of the beliefs and attitudes about penile size 43; the frequency of avoidance and safety seeking behaviours to prevent the risk of shame or humiliation 1 and the need to screen for BDD either by a questionnaire 44, 45 or structured diagnostic interview 46. This is because helping a man with BDD may require a more complex psychiatric intervention 47-49 than for those with small penis anxiety without BDD, where psycho‐education and counselling may be helpful 50, 51. However, those hypotheses are beyond the scope of the present paper and require randomised controlled trials with standardised scales and long‐term follow up.

Acknowledgements

This study presents independent research part‐funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London.

Conflicts of Interest

None.

References

1Veale D, Miles S, Read J et al. Phenomenology of men with body dysmorphic disorder concerning penis size compared to men anxious about their penis size and to controls: a cohort study. Body Image 2014. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.09.008
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
2Wylie KR, Eardley I. Penile size and the ‘small penis syndrome’. BJU Int 2007; 99: 1449– 1455
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
3Veale D, Boocock A, Gournay K et al. Body dysmorphic disorder. A survey of fifty cases. Br J Psychiatry 1996; 169: 196– 201
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
4Phillips KA, Menard W, Fay C, Weisberg R. Demographic characteristics, phenomenology, comorbidity, and family history in 200 individuals with body dysmorphic disorder. Psychosomatics 2005; 46: 317– 325
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
5Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW. Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation. J Urol 1996; 156: 995– 997
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
6Chrouser K, Bazant E, Jin L et al. Penile measurements in tanzanian males: guiding circumcision device design and supply forecasting. J Urol 2013; 190: 544– 550
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
7Aslan Y, Atan A, Aydın O, Nalçacıoğlu V, Tuncel A, Kadıoğlu A. Penile length and somatometric parameters: a study in healthy young Turkish men. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 339– 341
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
8Awwad Z, Abu‐Hijleh M, Basri S, Shegam N, Murshidi M, Ajlouni K. Penile measurements in normal adult Jordanians and in patients with erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 2004; 17: 191– 195
Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar
9Khan S, Somani B, Lam W, Donat R. Establishing a reference range for penile length in Caucasian British men: a prospective study of 609 men. BJU Int 2012; 109: 740– 744
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
10Ponchietti R, Mondaini N, Bonafè M, Di Loro F, Biscioni S, Masieri L. Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males. Eur Urol 2001; 39: 183– 186
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
11Mondaini N, Ponchietti R, Gontero P et al. Penile length is normal in most men seeking penile lengthening procedures. Int J Impot Res 2002; 14: 283– 286
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
12Promodu K, Shanmughadas K, Bhat S, Nair K. Penile length and circumference: an Indian study. Int J Impot Res 2007; 19: 558– 563
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
13Söylemez H, Atar M, Sancaktutar A, Penbegül N, Bozkurt Y, Önem K. Relationship between penile size and somatometric parameters in 2276 healthy young men. Int J Impot Res 2011; 24: 126– 129
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
14Choi S, Park SH, Lee BS, Han J. Erect penile size of Korean men. Venereology 1999; 12: 135– 139
Web of Science®Google Scholar
15Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264– 269
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
16Kamel I, Gadalla A, Ghanem H, Oraby M. Comparing penile measurements in normal and erectile dysfunction subjects. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 2305– 2310
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
17Harding R, Golombok SE. Test‐retest reliability of the measurement of penile dimensions in a sample of gay men. Arch Sex Behav 2002; 31: 351– 357
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
18Ajmani M, Jain S, Saxena S. Anthropometric study of male external genitalia of 320 healthy Nigerian adults. Anthropol Anz 1985; 43: 179– 186
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
19Bondil P, Costa P, Daures J, Louis J, Navratil H. Clinical study of the longitudinal deformation of the flaccid penis and of its variations with aging. Eur Urol 1991; 21: 284– 286
Web of Science®Google Scholar
20Savoie M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. A prospective study measuring penile length in men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2003; 169: 1462– 1464
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
21Choi IH, Kim KH, Jung H, Yoon SJ, Kim SW, Kim TB. Second to fourth digit ratio: a predictor of adult penile length. Asian J Androl 2011; 13: 710– 714
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
22Siminoski K, Bain J. The relationships among height, penile length, and foot size. Ann Sex Res 1993; 6: 231– 235
Google Scholar
23Mehraban D, Salehi M, Zayeri F. Penile size and somatometric parameters among Iranian normal adult men. Int J Impot Res 2006; 19: 303– 309
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
24Spyropoulos E, Christoforidis C, Borousas D, Mavrikos S, Bourounis M, Athanasiadis S. Augmentation phalloplasty surgery for penile dysmorphophobia in young adults: considerations regarding patient selection, outcome evaluation and techniques applied. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 121– 128
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
25Schneider T, Sperling H, Lümmen G, Syllwasschy J, Rübben H. Does penile size in younger men cause problems in condom use? A prospective measurement of penile dimensions in 111 young and 32 older men. Urology 2001; 57: 314– 318
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
26Sengezer M, Öztürk S, DevecI M. Accurate method for determining functional penile length in Turkish young men. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 48: 381– 385
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
27Shalaby M, Almohsen AR, El Shahid A, Abd Al‐Sameaa M, Mostafa T. Penile length–somatometric parameters relationship in healthy Egyptian men. Andrologia 2014. [Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1111/and.12275
Wiley Online Library PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
28Tomova A, Deepinder F, Robeva R, Lalabonova H, Kumanov P, Agarwal A. Growth and development of male external genitalia: a cross‐sectional study of 6200 males aged 0 to 19 years. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164: 1152– 1157
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
29Shah J, Christopher N. Can shoe size predict penile length? BJU Int 2002; 90: 586– 587
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
30Chen J, Gefen A, Greenstein A, Matzkin H, Elad D. Predicting penile size during erection. Int J Impot Res 2000; 12: 328– 333
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
31Lynn R. Rushton's r–K life history theory of race differences in penis length and circumference examined in 113 populations. Pers Individ Dif 2013; 55: 61– 266
Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar
32Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, Sanders SA. Erect penile length and circumference dimensions of 1,661 sexually active men in the United States. J Sex Med 2014; 11: 93– 101
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
33 King's College London. Penis size self‐measurement. 2013 video. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B045jjH3PZ4. Accessed December 2014
Google Scholar
34Karpati AM, Rubin CH, Kieszak SM, Marcus M, Troiano RP. Stature and pubertal stage assessment in American boys: the 1988–1994 Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Adolesc Health 2002; 30: 205– 212
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
35Wood JV. Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychol Bull 1989; 106: 231– 248
Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar
36Taylor SE, Brown JD. Illusion and well‐being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychol Bull 1988; 103: 193– 210
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
37Sedikides C, Gaertner L, Vevea JL. Pancultural self‐enhancement reloaded: a meta‐analytic reply to Heine. J Pers Soc Psychol 2005; 89: 539– 551
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
38Lever J, Frederick DA, Peplau LA. Does size matter? Men's and women's views on penis size across the lifespan. Psychol Men Masc 2006; 7: 129– 143
Crossref Google Scholar
39Eisenman R. Penis size: survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction. BMC Womens Health 2001; 1: 1. doi:10.1186/472‐6874‐1‐1
Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
40Davis S, Paterson L, Binik Y. Male genital image: measurement and implications for medical conditions and surgical practice. Sexologies 2012; 21: 43– 47
Crossref Google Scholar
41Davis SN, Binik YM, Amsel R, Carrier S. The Index of Male Genital Image: a new scale to assess male genital satisfaction. J Urol 2013; 190: 1335– 1339
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
42Herbenick D, Schick V, Reece M, Sanders SA, Fortenberry JD. The development and validation of the Male Genital Self‐Image Scale: results from a nationally representative probability sample of men in the United States. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 1516– 1525
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
43Veale D, Eshkevari E, Read J et al. Beliefs about penis size: validation of a scale for men with shame about the size of their penis. J Sex Med 2014; 11: 84– 92
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
44Veale D, Ellison N, Werner TG, Dodhia R, Serafty M, Clarke A. Development of a Cosmetic Procedure Screening questionnaire (COPS) for body dysmorphic disorder. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 65: 530– 532
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
45Veale D, Miles S, Read J et al. Penile dysmorphic disorder: development of a screening scale. Arch Sex Behav (in press)
Google Scholar
46First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM‐IV Axis I Disorders. New York: Biometric Research Department, 1995
Google Scholar
47Veale D, Gournay K, Dryden W et al. Body dysmorphic disorder: a cognitive behavioural model and pilot randomised controlled trial. Behav Res Ther 1996; 34: 717– 729
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
48Phillips KA, Albertini RS, Rasmussen SA. A randomized placebo‐controlled trial of fluoxetine in body dysmorphic disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59: 381– 388
Crossref CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
49Veale D, Anson M, Miles S, Pieta M, Costa A, Ellison N. Efficacy of cognitive behaviour therapy v anxiety management for body dysmorphic disorder: a randomised controlled trial. Psychother Psychosom 2014; 83: 341– 353
Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
50Ghanem H, Glina S, Assalian P, Buvat J. Position paper: management of men complaining of a small penis despite an actually normal size. J Sex Med 2013; 10: 294– 303
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar
51Ghanem H, Shamloul R, Khodeir F, ElShafie H, Kaddah A, Ismail I. Structured management and counseling for patients with a complaint of a small penis. J Sex Med 2007; 4: 1322– 1327
Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar

Abbreviations

BDD: body dysmorphic disorder
BMI: body mass index
ICC: intraclass correlation
PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses

Citing Literature

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 59

Prokar Dasgupta, Long live the BJUI, BJU International, 10.1111/bju.15128, 126, 1, (1-2), (2020).
Wiley Online Library
Hester Pastoor, Angela Gregory, Penile Size Dissatisfaction, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.03.015, (2020).
Crossref
Edward J. Choi, Faysal A. Yafi, What Is Normal and Who Qualifies? Validated Questionnaires for Penile Size Assessment and Body Dysmorphic Disorder, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.03.017, (2020).
Crossref
Andrés Reyes, Mariana Añolis, Édixon Ochoa, María Matera, Biopsicosociología del orgasmo en el varón y en la hembra: fundamentos y diferencias, Revista de la Universidad del Zulia, 10.46925//rdluz.30.25, 11, 30, (396-414), (2020).
Crossref
Marie Andersson, Sofia Sjöström, Monika Doroszkiewicz, Lisa Örtqvist, Kate Abrahamsson, Ulla Sillén, Gundela Holmdahl, Urological results and patient satisfaction in adolescents after surgery for proximal hypospadias in childhood, Journal of Pediatric Urology, 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.07.005, (2020).
Crossref
Krishna S. Vyas, Amjed Abu-Ghname, Joseph Banuelos, Shane D. Morrison, Oscar Manrique, Aesthetic Augmentation Phalloplasty: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Outcomes, Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007249, 146, 5, (995-1006), (2020).
Crossref
Bruce M. King, Average-Size Erect Penis: Fiction, Fact, and the Need for Counseling, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 10.1080/0092623X.2020.1787279, (1-10), (2020).
Crossref
T. S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Chittaranjan Andrade, Genital Dimensions: It Is Important to Know What Is Normal, Journal of Psychosexual Health, 10.1177/2631831819894110, 1, 3-4, (209-210), (2019).
Crossref
Brian J Morris, Stephen Moreton, John N Krieger, Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review, Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 10.1111/jebm.12361, 12, 4, (263-290), (2019).
Wiley Online Library
Motofumi Suzuki, Hiroshi Ikegaya, Nozomi Idota, Taketo Kawai, Yusuke Sato, Haruki Kume, Penile size and stretched rate in a Japanese male population: A cross‐sectional cadaveric study, International Journal of Urology, 10.1111/iju.14052, 26, 9, (936-937), (2019).
Wiley Online Library
Silvano Bertelloni, Fulvia Baldinotti, Giampiero I. Baroncelli, Maria A. Caligo, Diego Peroni, Paternity in 5α-Reductase-2 Deficiency: Report of Two Brothers with Spontaneous or Assisted Fertility and Literature Review, Sexual Development, 10.1159/000497400, 13, 2, (55-59), (2019).
Crossref
Gottfried Lemperle, Luis Casavantes, Penisvergrößerung durch Injektion von PMMA-Mikrosphären, Intimchirurgie, 10.1007/978-3-662-57392-1, (79-89), (2019).
Crossref
Giancarlo Marra, Andrew Drury, Lisa Tran, David Veale, Gordon H. Muir, Systematic Review of Surgical and Nonsurgical Interventions in Normal Men Complaining of Small Penis Size, Sexual Medicine Reviews, 10.1016/j.sxmr.2019.01.004, (2019).
Crossref
Alessandro Littara, Roberto Melone, Julio Cesar Morales-Medina, Tommaso Iannitti, Beniamino Palmieri, Cosmetic penile enhancement surgery: a 3-year single-centre retrospective clinical evaluation of 355 cases, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-019-41652-w, 9, 1, (2019).
Crossref
Stefan Schill, Dimitrjie Panfilov, Ursula Mirastschijski, Intimchirurgie beim Mann, Intimchirurgie, 10.1007/978-3-662-57392-1, (49-68), (2019).
Crossref
Marah C. Hehemann, Maxwell Towe, Linda My Huynh, Farouk M. El-Khatib, Faysal A. Yafi, Penile Girth Enlargement Strategies: What’s the Evidence?, Sexual Medicine Reviews, 10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.11.003, (2019).
Crossref
Niranjan J. Sathianathen, Robert Lane, Benjamin Condon, Declan G. Murphy, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Christopher J. Weight, Alastair D. Lamb, Early Online Attention Can Predict Citation Counts for Urological Publications: The #UroSoMe_Score, European Urology Focus, 10.1016/j.euf.2019.10.015, (2019).
Crossref
Alexander Greenstein, Snir Dekalo, Juza Chen, Penile size in adult men—recommendations for clinical and research measurements, International Journal of Impotence Research, 10.1038/s41443-019-0157-4, (2019).
Crossref
Gideon A. Blecher, Josip Vukina, David J. Ralph, Penile dimensions: What are surgeons measuring?, International Journal of Impotence Research, 10.1038/s41443-019-0135-x, (2019).
Crossref
Hamed Mohseni Rad, Penile Length: A Study in Iranian Military Soldiers, Journal of Research in Urology, 10.30699/jru.3.2.33, 3, 2, (33-40), (2019).
Crossref
Kiran L. Sharma, Manaf Alom, Landon Trost, Surgical and Non-surgical Penile Elongation Techniques, Current Sexual Health Reports, 10.1007/s11930-019-00211-0, (2019).
Crossref
Lillian Y. Lai, Alan W. Shindel, Penile Length and Its Preservation in Men After Radical Prostatectomy, Current Sexual Health Reports, 10.1007/s11930-019-00226-7, (2019).
Crossref
Mohamad Habous, Simone Giona, Alaa Tealab, Mohammed Aziz, Hammoda Sherif, Osama Abdelwahab, Saleh Binsaleh, David Ralph, Carlo Bettocchi, John P. Mulhall, Gordon Muir, Penile length is preserved after implant surgery, BJU International, 10.1111/bju.14604, 123, 5, (885-890), (2018).
Wiley Online Library
Alan W. Shindel, Growers versus showers: a meaningful (or useful) distinction?, International Journal of Impotence Research, 10.1038/s41443-018-0070-2, 30, 6, (355-356), (2018).
Crossref
S.P. Rynja, T.P.V.M. de Jong, J.L.H.R. Bosch, L.M.O. de Kort, Testosterone prior to hypospadias repair: Postoperative complication rates and long-term cosmetic results, penile length and body height, Journal of Pediatric Urology, 10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.09.020, 14, 1, (31.e1-31.e8), (2018).
Crossref
Michael King, Sexual Problems, Primary Care Mental Health, 10.1017/9781911623038, (327-342), (2018).
Crossref
Janniko Georgiadis, Erick Janssen, André van Beek, Julie Bakker, De biologie van seksualiteit, Leerboek seksuologie, 10.1007/978-90-368-1111-8, (37-96), (2018).
Crossref
Brunno CF Sanches, Walker W. Laranja, João CC Alonso, Ronald F. Rejowski, Fabiano A. Simões, Leonardo O. Reis, Does underestimated penile size impact erectile function in healthy men?, International Journal of Impotence Research, 10.1038/s41443-018-0039-1, 30, 4, (158-162), (2018).
Crossref
Joseph Brennan, Size Matters: Penis Size and Sexual Position in Gay Porn Profiles, Journal of Homosexuality, 10.1080/00918369.2017.1364568, 65, 7, (912-933), (2017).
Crossref
Rogério Alves Barboza, Eloísio Alexsandro da Silva, Tamiris Ruellas, Ronaldo Damião, Anthropometric study of penile length in self-declared Brazilians regarding the color of the skin as white or black: The study of a Myth, International Journal of Impotence Research, 10.1038/s41443-017-0009-z, 30, 1, (43-47), (2017).
Crossref
Eabhann M. O'Connor, Gregory J. Nason, Fardod O'Kelly, Rustom P. Manecksha, Stacy Loeb, Newsworthiness vs scientific impact: are the most highly cited urology papers the most widely disseminated in the media?, BJU International, 10.1111/bju.13881, 120, 3, (441-454), (2017).
Wiley Online Library
Ethan P. Davoudzadeh, Natan P. Davoudzadeh, Ezra Margolin, Peter J. Stahl, Doron S. Stember, Penile Length: Measurement Technique and Applications, Sexual Medicine Reviews, 10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.10.002, (2017).
Crossref
Ömer Barış Yücel, Emre Salabaş, Bahadır Ermeç, Ateş Kadıoğlu, The Case Report of Priapus and a Modern Approach to an Ancient Affliction, Sexual Medicine Reviews, 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.08.003, 5, 1, (120-128), (2017).
Crossref
Hidekazu Yamada, Appearance and Internal Aging, Textbook of Aging Skin, 10.1007/978-3-662-47398-6, (331-340), (2017).
Crossref
Naser S. Hussein, Ammar F. Abid, Ahmed S. Alnuaimi, Reference range of flaccid and stretched penile lengths of adult males in Baghdad: A cross-sectional study, Arab Journal of Urology, 10.1016/j.aju.2017.01.001, 15, 1, (68-73), (2017).
Crossref
Rodrigo Ribeiro Vieiralves, Paulo Henrique Pereira Conte, Eduardo Medina Felici, Nádia Cristina Pinheiro Rodrigues, Tomás Accioly de souza, Francisco J. B. Sampaio, Luciano Alves Favorito, Impact Assessment of Urethral Meatus Morphology and Penile Biometry in Transurethral Prostate and Bladder Surgery, Advances in Urology, 10.1155/2017/6321702, 2017, (1-6), (2017).
Crossref
Irene María López García, Nicolás Mendoza Ladrón de Guevara, Myths About Sexual Health, The Textbook of Clinical Sexual Medicine, 10.1007/978-3-319-52539-6, (367-386), (2017).
Crossref
Dylan Isaacson, Roxana Aghili, Non Wongwittavas, Maurice Garcia, How Big is Too Big? The Girth of Bestselling Insertive Sex Toys to Guide Maximal Neophallus Dimensions, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.09.012, 14, 11, (1455-1461), (2017).
Crossref
Serwah Bonsu Asafo-Agyei, Emmanuel Ameyaw, Jean-Pierre Chanoine, Samuel Blay Nguah, Normative penile anthropometry in term newborns in Kumasi, Ghana: a cross-sectional prospective study, International Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology, 10.1186/s13633-017-0042-1, 2017, 1, (2017).
Crossref
JOSIE TETLEY, DAVID M. LEE, JAMES NAZROO, SHARRON HINCHLIFF, Let's talk about sex – what do older men and women say about their sexual relations and sexual activities? A qualitative analysis of ELSA Wave 6 data, Ageing and Society, 10.1017/S0144686X16001203, 38, 3, (497-521), (2016).
Crossref
Sarah R. Ottenhof, Petra de Graaf, Timo F. W. Soeterik, Lidewij M. F. H. Neeter, Marijn Zilverschoon, Matty Spinder, J. L. H. Ruud Bosch, Ronald L. A. W. Bleys, Laetitia M. O. de Kort, Architectuur van het corpus spongiosum: een anatomische studieThe architecture of the corpus spongiosum: an anatomical study, Tijdschrift voor Urologie, 10.1007/s13629-016-0159-7, 7, 8, (178-187), (2016).
Crossref
Arie S Parnham, Stewart M Parnham, Ian Pearce, A mathematical model to predict the loss of length in patients undergoing plication corporoplasty for Peyronie’s disease, Journal of Clinical Urology, 10.1177/2051415816671085, 10, 1, (5-8), (2016).
Crossref
Nicole K. Smith, Scott Butler, Brandon Wagner, Erika Collazo, Lucia Caltabiano, Debby Herbenick, Genital Self-Image and Considerations of Elective Genital Surgery, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 10.1080/0092623X.2016.1141820, 43, 2, (169-184), (2016).
Crossref
Ângelo do Carmo Silva Matthes, Gustavo Zucca Matthes, A comment about the quantitative analysis of normal vaginal shape and dimension, International Urogynecology Journal, 10.1007/s00192-016-3094-5, 27, 10, (1609-1610), (2016).
Crossref
David Veale, Sarah Miles, Julie Read, Sally Bramley, Andrea Troglia, Lina Carmona, Chiara Fiorito, Hannah Wells, Kevan Wylie, Gordon Muir, Relationship between self-discrepancy and worries about penis size in men with body dysmorphic disorder, Body Image, 10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.02.004, 17, (48-56), (2016).
Crossref
Kimihiko Moriya, Michiko Nakamura, Yoko Nishimura, Takeya Kitta, Yukiko Kanno, Hiroki Chiba, Masafumi Kon, Nobuo Shinohara, Factors affecting post-pubertal penile size in patients with hypospadias, World Journal of Urology, 10.1007/s00345-016-1763-0, 34, 9, (1317-1321), (2016).
Crossref
Anna Ross, Shalender Bhasin, Hypogonadism, Urologic Clinics of North America, 10.1016/j.ucl.2016.01.002, 43, 2, (163-176), (2016).
Crossref
Sarah R. Ottenhof, Petra de Graaf, Timo F.W. Soeterik, Lidewij M.F.H. Neeter, Marijn Zilverschoon, Matty Spinder, J.L.H. Ruud Bosch, Ronald L.A.W. Bleys, Laetitia M.O. de Kort, Architecture of the Corpus Spongiosum: An Anatomical Study, Journal of Urology, 10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.136, 196, 3, (919-925), (2016).
Crossref
Natan P. Davoudzadeh, Peter J. Stahl, Doron S. Stember, Penile Length: Natural History, Preservation, and Recovery, Contemporary Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction, 10.1007/978-3-319-31587-4, (261-276), (2016).
Crossref
Luis Casavantes, Gottfried Lemperle, Palmira Morales, Penile Girth Enhancement With Polymethylmethacrylate-Based Soft Tissue Fillers, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.06.008, 13, 9, (1414-1422), (2016).
Crossref
Jiajia Luo, Cornelia Betschart, James A. Ashton-Miller, John O. L. DeLancey, Author’s reply to letter from Matthes and Zucca-Matthes on “Quantitative analyses of variability in normal vaginal shape and dimension on MR images”, International Urogynecology Journal, 10.1007/s00192-016-3103-8, 27, 10, (1611-1611), (2016).
Crossref
Menelaos Apostolou, Size did not matter: An evolutionary account of the variation in penis size and size anxiety, Cogent Psychology, 10.1080/23311908.2016.1147933, 3, 1, (2016).
Crossref
E Yuruk, M Z Temiz, A Colakerol, A Y Muslumanoglu, Mucosal cuff length to penile length ratio may affect the risk of premature ejaculation in circumcised males, International Journal of Impotence Research, 10.1038/ijir.2015.34, 28, 2, (54-56), (2015).
Crossref
Mohamad Habous, Gordon Muir, Alaa Tealab, Ben Williamson, Mohamed Elkhouly, Waleed Elhadek, Saad Mahmoud, Osama Laban, Saleh Binsaleh, Osama Abdelwahab, John P. Mulhall, David Veale, Analysis of the Interobserver Variability in Penile Length Assessment, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10.1111/jsm.13005, 12, 10, (2031-2035), (2015).
Wiley Online Library
Mohamad Habous, Alaa Tealab, Ben Williamson, Saleh Binsaleh, Sherif El Dawy, Saad Mahmoud, Osama Abdelwahab, Mohammed Nassar, John P. Mulhall, David Veale, Gordon Muir, Erect Penile Dimensions in a Cohort of 778 Middle Eastern Men: Establishment of a Nomogram, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10.1111/jsm.12894, 12, 6, (1402-1406), (2015).
Wiley Online Library
Menelaos Apostolou, Female Choice and the Evolution of Penis Size, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 10.1007/s10508-015-0580-7, 44, 7, (1749-1750), (2015).
Crossref
Marie Andersson, Monika Doroszkiewicz, Charlotte Arfwidsson, Kate Abrahamsson, Ulla Sillén, Gundela Holmdahl, Normalized Urinary Flow at Puberty after Tubularized Incised Plate Urethroplasty for Hypospadias in Childhood, Journal of Urology, 10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.072, 194, 5, (1407-1413), (2015).
Crossref
Prokar Dasgupta, Scott Millar, Jo Wixon, Scientific impact and beyond, BJU International, 10.1111/bju.13357, 116, 6, (833-833), (2015).
Wiley Online Library
Hidekazu Yamada, Appearance and Internal Aging, Textbook of Aging Skin, 10.1007/978-3-642-27814-3, (1-10), (2014).
Crossref

Volume115, Issue6

June 2015

Pages 978-986

Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15 521 men

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Eligibility Criteria

Information Sources

Study Selection

Data Collection Process

Data Item

Risk of Bias in Individual Studies

Summary Measure

Synthesis of Results

Risk of Bias across Studies

Results

Study Selection

Study Characteristics

Risk of Bias across Studies

Synthesis of Results

Correlation with Somatometric Parameters

Height and flaccid length

Height and stretched flaccid or erect length

Flaccid length and weight or body mass index (BMI)

Erect or stretched flaccid length and weight or BMI

Digit ratio

Testicular volume

Foot size

Age

Summary

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions and Future Research

Acknowledgements

Conflicts of Interest

References

Abbreviations

Citing Literature

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 59

Figures

References

Related

Information