The COUPLES‐project: a pooled analysis of patient and partner treatment satisfaction scale (TSS) outcomes following vardenafil treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of vardenafil on treatment satisfaction in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) and their female partners. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week studies of flexible-dose vardenafil vs placebo, in men with ED for >/=6 months (n = 788) and their untreated female partners. Measures of efficacy included the Treatment Satisfaction Scale (TSS), International Index of Erectile Function, Erectile Function domain (IIEF-EF), and Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) questions 2 and 3 (SEP-2, 'Were you able to insert your penis into your partner's vagina?'; and SEP-3, 'Did your erection last long enough for you to have sexual intercourse?'). In addition to the overall analysis, there was a subgroup analysis for potential moderators of response, e.g. whether patients who had undergone previous phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) treatment. RESULTS: At baseline, least-squares (LS) mean scores for all TSS domains were similar in the vardenafil and placebo groups. After 12 weeks of treatment, vardenafil significantly improved the LS mean score for all domains compared with placebo, among both patients and their female partners (P < 0.0001, 'last'-observation-carried- forward analysis). Absolute between- group differences in LS mean TSS scores (vardenafil - placebo) were: ease of erection (patients 23.4, partners 24.9), erectile function satisfaction (36.7 and 32.9), pleasure from sexual activity (23.0, 23.7), satisfaction with orgasm (27.6, 21.8), confidence to complete sexual activity (28.2, 32.5), and satisfaction with medication (37.4, 35.6). The benefits of vardenafil were greater in men who had undergone previous PDE-5-inhibitor treatment and men aged <45 years, while the overall pattern of benefit was similar in all examined subgroups. There were significant benefits with vardenafil in all other variables (IIEF-EF scores and positive response rates to SEP-2 and SEP-3). CONCLUSIONS: Vardenafil significantly improved treatment satisfaction in men with ED, and in their partners. The results provide further evidence of the validity of the TSS.
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 | 0.025 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".