ReviewInternational journal of impotence research
Patients' preference in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a critical review of the literature.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Men's beliefs about treatment for erectile dysfunction-what influences treatment use? A systematic review.International journal of impotence research · 2021Pooled it
- Guideline of guidelines: a scoping review on comparison of major clinical guidelines for erectile dysfunction.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Non-invasive Management Options for Erectile Dysfunction When a Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitor Fails.Drugs & aging · 2018Review
- Treatment satisfaction among men with concurrent benign prostatic hyperplasia and erectile dysfunction treated with tadalafil or other phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor combinations.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
- Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.