ArticleInternational journal of impotence research
Post-marketing surveillance study of the efficacy and safety of vardenafil among patients with erectile dysfunction in primary care.
Article in International journal of impotence research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors on choroid and ocular vasculature: a literature review.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2020Review
- The nitric oxide-guanylate cyclase pathway and glaucoma.Nitric oxide : biology and chemistry · 2018Review
- Safety of sildenafil citrate: review of 67 double-blind placebo-controlled trials and the postmarketing safety database.International journal of clinical practice · 2010Review
- Vision disorders and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors: a review of the evidence to date.Drug safety · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vardenafil in primary care, we undertook a post-marketing surveillance study in 384 men with erectile dysfunction (ED), enrolled by 22 family physicians in Korea, from July 2004 to August 2005. Of the 384 patients enrolled, 343 (89.3%) returned for efficacy assessment and safety evaluation. Among the latter, 279 patients (81.3%) reported that their erectile function improved, 292 (92.1%) showed enhanced IIEF (International Index of Erectile Function)-5 scores and 265 (77.9%) responded that they were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with vardenafil treatment. The most frequent reason for patient satisfaction with vardenafil was erectile potency (62.4%), followed by safety (42.4%), rapid onset (35.3%), adequate duration of efficacy (28.5%) and easy administration (25.9%). A total of 23 adverse events were observed in 18 patients, with the most frequent being hot flushes (3.2%), followed by headache (1.2%), nasal congestion (0.6%), color vision disturbance (0.3%), dizziness (0.3%), dry mouth (0.3%), dyspepsia (0.3%), nausea (0.3%) and diarrhea (0.3%). Only one patient discontinued vardenafil as a direct result of an adverse event. These results suggest that vardenafil prescribed by primary care physicians improved erectile function and was well tolerated by patients with ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.