ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2019
Variation in collagenase Clostridium histolyticum practice patterns: a Survey of ISSM Members.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH, Xiaflex, Xiapex) is the only FDA-approved medication for treatment of Peyronie's disease. It is unclear how practitioners actually use CCH in their own practices. The objectives of the study were: (1) to identify variability in practice patterns for CCH among practitioners, (2) to assess adherence to the package insert instructions, and (3) to evaluate whether provider satisfaction was associated with adherence to instructions. A 30-question online survey was distributed to 1270 members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) from the EU, USA, Canada and Australia. Of the 30 questions, 10 survey questions had only one response consistent with the CCH package insert recommendations. An "adherence" score was calculated for each survey participant depending on how many of these questions were answered correctly. The average adherence scores of various groups were compared using a student's t-test. A chi-squared test was used to determine association between categorical variables. Of 202 total responses, 132 practitioners reported using CCH out of 1270 ISSM members from countries where CCH is available (10.4% response rate). Practitioners from outside the USA were more likely to be satisfied with CCH (p = 0.006), and more experienced users (>20 uses) were more likely to be satisfied than less experienced users (<10 uses) (p = 0.046). Satisfied users of CCH did not have significantly different adherence scores than non-satisfied users. Even though 67% of practitioners believed they followed the package insert guidelines, only 11% adhered to all the recommendations evaluated by the survey. Treatment adherence to package insert guidelines does not appear to be associated with provider satisfaction. We believe there is utility in seeing a snapshot of these practice patterns so practitioners may feel more comfortable adapting their own practice in light of newer data supporting alternative administration methods.
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.