Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21191396›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of impotence research

Patients' preference in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a critical review of the literature.

A Martin Morales, M Casillas, C Turbi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A Martin MoralesUrology Department, Hospital Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain. amartinmorales@gmail.com
M Casillas
C Turbi
Eli Lilly (Spain) · ESHospital Doctor José Molina Orosa · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increase in the number of safe and effective ED treatments highlights the importance of patients' preference when choosing a therapeutic option. Several studies assessing these preferences are now available in published literature. This article aims to review and discuss the studies on patients' preference and the data concerning the reasons for preference for one PDE-5 inhibitor over another. A PubMed search was conducted for manuscripts published within the last 10 years containing the search items ED, preference, sildenafil, tadalafil or vardenafil. Selected articles were discerningly reviewed and summarized (design, limitations and relevance). The articles selected were peer reviewed publications on patients' preference and ED published in medical literature since 2000. Preference studies that include either two (tadalafil and sildenafil) or three PDE-5 inhibitors (tadalafil, sildenafil and vardenafil), showed that the majority of the patients preferred tadalafil versus either vardenafil or sildenafil. As the treatment of ED has evolved, patients' preference has become an important aspect of ED therapy, 52-65% of patients prefer tadalafil versus 12-20% vardenafil or 8-30% sildenafil. All founded studies have serious limitations, particularly in terms of dosing differences. Preference for tadalafil was mainly because of the longer duration of action that increases patients' freedom in sexual life. There is a consistency in patients' preference for tadalafil over sildenafil or vardenafil across the studies reviewed.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceErectile DysfunctionHumansMalePhosphodiesterase InhibitorsTreatment OutcomePhosphodiesterase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID21191396
OpenAlexW2047867564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.