The efficacy and safety of tadalafil: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the efficacy and safety of tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor, in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 2102 men (mean age 56 years) with mild-to-severe ED of various causes were randomized to placebo or tadalafil, taken as needed with no food restrictions, at fixed 'on-demand' doses of 10 or 20 mg in 11 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials lasting 12 weeks. The three co-primary outcomes were changes from baseline in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and the proportion of 'yes' responses to questions 2 and 3 of the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP). Additional efficacy instruments included a Global Assessment Question (GAQ). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, tadalafil gave significantly better outcomes. Patients receiving either dose of tadalafil had a significant mean improvement of 6.5 and 8.6, respectively, in the IIEF erectile function domain score from baseline (P < 0.001 vs placebo). At both doses the mean success rate for intercourse attempts (SEP-Q3) was 58% and 68%, respectively, compared with 31% in the placebo group (P < 0.001), and 71% and 84% reported improved erections at the endpoint (GAQ), vs 33% on placebo (P < 0.001). Tadalafil was effective up to 36 h after dosing and was effective regardless of disease severity and causes, and in patients of all ages. The most frequent adverse events were headache, dyspepsia, back pain and myalgia. CONCLUSION: Tadalafil was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for ED.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".