ArticleInternational journal of impotence research
The application of quantitative methods for identifying and exploring the presence of bias in systematic reviews: PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do randomized clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups?Systematic reviews · 2014Article
- Do randomized clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups? A protocol for a meta-epidemiological study of PDE-5 inhibitors.Systematic reviews · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction was performed to evaluate the utility of quantitative methods for identifying and exploring the influence of bias and study quality on pooled outcomes from meta-analyses. We included 123 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methodological quality was poorly reported. All three drugs appeared highly effective. Indirect adjusted analyses showed no differences between the three drugs. Funnel plots and statistical tests showed no evidence of small-study effects for sildenafil whereas there was evidence of such bias for tadalafil and vardenafil. Adjustment for missing studies using trim and fill techniques did not alter the pooled estimates substantially. The exclusion of previous sildenafil nonresponders was associated with larger treatment effects for tadalafil. This investigation was hampered by poor reporting of methodological quality, a low number of studies, heterogeneity and large effect sizes. Despite such limitations, a comprehensive assessment of biases should be a routine in systematic reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18059501What 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.