Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37876727›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2023

Evidence for benefits and risks of tadalafil as a non-prescription medicine: review and evaluation using the Group Delphi technique to achieve consensus amongst clinical experts.

Kurt Miller, Uwe May, Wolf-Dietrich Beecken, Georgios Hatzichristodoulou, Michael Böhm, Stefan Fink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Kurt MillerDepartment of Urology, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany.
Uwe MayDepartment of Health Economics and Pharmacoeconomics, Fresenius University of Applied Sciences, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Wolf-Dietrich BeeckenDepartment of Urology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Georgios HatzichristodoulouMartha-Maria Hospital Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
Michael BöhmDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of the Saarland, Homburg Saar, Germany.
Stefan FinkState Pharmacists' Association of Thuringia, Erfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An evidence-based consensus meeting was held with urologists, a pharmacist and a cardiologist to perform a structured benefit-risk analysis of reclassifying tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor for treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), to be available without prescription in Germany. As per the Brass process endorsed by regulatory authorities, an evidence-based Brass value tree was developed, which identified the incremental benefits and risks that should be considered above the safety and efficacy evidence required for prescription medicines. During the Group Delphi consensus meeting, the expert panel rated the likelihood and clinical impact of each benefit and risk on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (high). Overall attribute scores were calculated from the product of the mean likelihood and mean clinical impact scores giving a possible score of 0-9. The overall benefit attribute scores ranged from 2.8 to 5.4. The overall risk attribute scores ranged from 0.2 to 2.2 though most were 1.0 or less (3 or more is generally considered to be of concern). On balance, the independent meeting scored the benefits of reclassification of tadalafil higher than the risks and considered the risk mitigation strategies of the packaging label and patient information leaflet (PIL) sufficient.

Indexed as

erectile dysfunctionnon-prescriptionphosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5 inhibitor)reclassificationtadalafil

Identifiers

PMID37876727
PMCPMC10590875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.