ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2026
Oral spray sildenafil in erectile dysfunction: current evidence and clinical perspectives.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Erectile dysfunction is one of the most prevalent male sexual disorders and is commonly managed with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, among which sildenafil remains the most widely prescribed agent. Conventional tablet formulations have demonstrated well-established efficacy and safety; however, treatment adherence is frequently influenced by factors beyond pharmacological effectiveness. In recent years, alternative sildenafil formulations, including oral spray systems, have been developed to improve treatment acceptability and potentially enhance the overall patient experience. This narrative review summarizes the current evidence regarding oral spray sildenafil, focusing on its pharmacological rationale, clinical efficacy, onset of action, safety, tolerability, patient experience, and potential role in clinical practice. Available evidence suggests that oral spray sildenafil may offer practical advantages, particularly for patients with swallowing difficulties or those seeking a less medicalized treatment experience. However, most currently available data derive from pharmacokinetic investigations or indirect comparisons with other alternative oral formulations, whereas direct comparative clinical studies remain scarce. Consequently, no consistent evidence currently demonstrates superior efficacy, faster onset of action, or improved safety compared with conventional tablet formulations. Likewise, formulation-specific data regarding patient-reported outcomes and real-world effectiveness remain limited. Oral spray sildenafil therefore represents an emerging alternative formulation that may improve treatment acceptability in selected patients, although its precise clinical role has yet to be established. Well-designed comparative clinical trials are warranted to clarify its therapeutic value and identify patient populations most likely to benefit from this delivery modality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911518What 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.