ArticleUrology research & practice2025
Vardenafil and Tamsulosin in the Management of Ureteral Stent-Related Symptoms: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2025. 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.
- A Randomized Study of a Comfort-Oriented Daytime Double-J Stent Removal Protocol: Effects on Pain, Anxiety, and Patient Satisfaction.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of vardenafil, a phosphodi-esterase-5 inhibitor, and tamsulosin, an alpha-blocker, in the management of ureteral srtent-elated symptoms. Methods: A total of 208 patients who underwent ureteric stent placement after the removal of ureteric stones were enrolled and randomly divided to receive either var- denafil 10 mg daily or tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily for a duration of 3 weeks. The validated Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) was used to assess patients at baseline and after 3 weeks from starting the medications. Results: This study compared tamsulosin and vardenafil in 208 patients (101 vs. 107) with a mean age of 45.07 ± 9.5 years, predominantly male (67.4%); both groups were similar in baseline characteristics (P >.05). A notable statistical significant reduction in total scores from the first visit to the fourth visit (vardenafil: 136.03 to 85.01; tamsulosin: 129.9 to 97). Vardenafil showed a statistically significant improvement (P <.001) compared to tamsulosin across all USSQ domains except body pain, which has statistically significant improvement in the tamsulosin group. During the follow-up visits, vardenafil had statistically significant improvement in all USSQ domains; however, tamsu- losin had statistically significant improvement in all USSQ domains except in sexual health (P =.5). Side effects were mild, with retrograde ejaculation and hypotension in the tamsulosin group and headaches in the vardenafil group. Conclusion: Vardenafil showed promising results in controlling stent-related symptoms and can be considered an alternative or adjunct medication to tamsulosin in the management of stent-related symptoms; however, this needs further exploration in larger, multi-center studies to validate these findings and optimize patient outcomes in clinical practice.
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.