Dataset Information

Indirect comparison of interventions using published randomised trials: systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are no randomised and properly blinded trials directly comparing one PDE-5 inhibitor with another in a normal home setting. Valid indirect comparisons with a common comparator must examine equivalent doses, similar duration, similar populations, with the same outcomes reported in the same way.

Methods

Published randomised, double-blind trials of oral PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction were sought from reference lists in previous reviews and electronic searching. Analyses of efficacy and harm were carried out for each treatment, and results compared where there was a common comparator and consistency of outcome reporting, using equivalent doses.

Results

Analysis was limited by differential reporting of outcomes. Sildenafil trials were clinically and geographically more diverse. Tadalafil and vardenafil trials tended to use enriched enrollment. Using all trials, the three interventions were similar for consistently reported efficacy outcomes. Rates of successful intercourse for sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil were 65%, 62%, and 59%, with placebo rates of 23-28%. The rates of improved erections were 76%, 75% and 71%, respectively, with placebo rates of 22-24%, and NNTs of 1.9 or 2.0. Reporting of withdrawals was less consistent, but all-cause withdrawals for sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil were 8% 13% and 20%. All three drugs were well tolerated, with headache being the most commonly reported event at 13-17%. There were few serious adverse events.

Conclusion

There were differences between trials in outcomes reported, limiting comparisons, and the most useful outcomes were not reported. For common outcomes there was similar efficacy between PDE-5 inhibitors.

SUBMITTER: Moore RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1343572 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Indirect comparison of interventions using published randomised trials: systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.

Moore R Andrew RA Derry Sheena S McQuay Henry J HJ

BMC urology 20051214

<h4>Background</h4>There are no randomised and properly blinded trials directly comparing one PDE-5 inhibitor with another in a normal home setting. Valid indirect comparisons with a common comparator must examine equivalent doses, similar duration, similar populations, with the same outcomes reported in the same way.<h4>Methods</h4>Published randomised, double-blind trials of oral PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction were sought from reference lists in previous reviews and electronic searc ...[more]

PMID: 16354303

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCluster randomised trials (CRTs) are a key instrument to evaluate public health interventions. Fidelity assessment examines study processes to gauge whether an intervention was delivered as initially planned. Evaluation of implementation fidelity (IF) is required to establish whether the measured effects of a trial are due to the intervention itself and may be particularly important for CRTs of complex interventions conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, current CRT reporting guidelines offer no guidance on IF assessment. The objective of this review was to study current practices concerning the assessment of IF in CRTs of public health interventions in LMICs.MethodsCRTs of public health interventions in LMICs that planned or reported IF assessment in either the trial protocol or the main trial report were included. The MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were queried from January 2012 to May 2016. To ensure availability of a study protocol, CRTs reporting a registration number in the abstract were included. Relevant data were extracted from each study protocol and trial report by two researchers using a predefined screening sheet. Risk of bias for individual studies was assessed.ResultsWe identified 90 CRTs of public health interventions in LMICs with a study protocol in a publicly available trial registry published from January 2012 to May 2016. Among these 90 studies, 25 (28%) did not plan or report assessing IF; the remaining 65 studies (72%) addressed at least one IF dimension. IF assessment was planned in 40% (36/90) of trial protocols and reported in 71.1% (64/90) of trial reports. The proportion of overall agreement between the trial protocol and trial report concerning occurrence of IF assessment was 66.7% (60/90). Most studies had low to moderate risk of bias.ConclusionsIF assessment is not currently a systematic practice in CRTs of public health interventions carried out in LMICs. In the absence of IF assessment, it may be difficult to determine if CRT results are due to the intervention design, to its implementation, or to unknown or external factors that may influence results. CRT reporting guidelines should promote IF assessment.Trial registrationProtocol published and available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0351-0.

Project description:IntroductionSexual dysfunction in men is common, and optimal treatment is complex. Although several systematic reviews concerning treatment approaches exist, a comprehensive overview without limitations concerning the population, interventions, or outcomes is lacking.AimTo conduct a "review of reviews" to compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic, non-pharmacologic, and combined interventions.Methods9 electronic databases, relevant journals, and reference lists up to July 2018 were searched. For each intervention, only the most recent and comprehensive meta-analysis or systematic review was included. The methodologic quality of the reviews was appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 tool.Main outcome measureSexual functioning (via intravaginal ejaculatory latency time and international index of erectile function), sexual satisfaction, and adverse effects.Results30 systematic reviews were included. For premature ejaculation, several treatments, including oral pharmacotherapy (selective serotonin inhibitors, phosphodiesterase type 5 [PDE5] inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, and opioid analgesics), topical anesthetics, and combined drug and behavioral therapies demonstrated significant improvements of 1-5 minutes in the intravaginal ejaculatory latency time. Pharmacologic interventions (PDE5 inhibitors, penile injection, and testosterone), shockwave therapy, lifestyle modifications, and combined therapies (PDE5 inhibitors and psychological intervention) were effective in treating erectile dysfunction. Most pharmacologic therapies were associated with adverse effects.ConclusionsThere is suggestive evidence that pharmacologic interventions or combined therapies are more effective than non-pharmacologic interventions for treating sexual dysfunction in men; however, a range of treatment options should be presented to individual patients so they may consider the risks and benefits of treatments differently. Evidence related to behavioral and psychological interventions is insufficient compared with that related to drug trials, highlighting the necessity for larger and better randomized controlled trials. Ciocanel O, Power K, Eriksen A. Interventions to Treat Erectile Dysfunction and Premature Ejaculation: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. Sex Med 2019;7:251-269.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse the completeness of reporting of blinding in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in anaesthesiology, the actual blinding status of various persons associated with an RCT and trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology related to RCTs. METHODS:This was a methodological study and a cross-sectional survey. We analysed reporting related to blinding in published RCTs of interventions published in seven highly cited anaesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016 and registered protocols in ClinicalTrials.gov. We surveyed corresponding authors of included RCTs about their definitions of blinding. The primary outcome was the number of RCTs that explicitly described who was blinded in a trial. Secondary outcomes were definitions of blinding terminology in the trials; trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology; discrepancies in the blinding description within registered protocols and between registered protocols and publications. RESULTS:Out of 622 analysed RCTs, 38% were not explicitly described as either open label or blinded studies and 10% did not report any information about blinding or lack of blinding. Only one manuscript fully reported the status of blinding for various individuals that may be involved with a trial. The most common descriptor was that a trial was double-blind. We found discrepant information regarding blinding in the majority of registered protocols. Even when there were no discrepancies in the registration, we found discrepancies in the reporting of blinding between the majority of registered protocols and published manuscripts. The survey of authors (40 responses from 231 eligible authors; 17% response rate) of analysed RCTs showed that they differed in how they defined different levels of blinding in trials. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting of the blinding status of key individuals involved in analysed anaesthesiology RCTs was insufficient. For reporting guidelines, peer reviewers and editors should insist on clear information on who was blinded in a trial instead of using the term 'double-blind' for different blinding practices.

Dataset Information

Indirect comparison of interventions using published randomised trials: systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Indirect comparison of interventions using published randomised trials: systematic review of PDE-5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets