Treatment Satisfaction with Sildenafil in a Canadian Real-Life Setting. A 6-Month Prospective Observational Study of Primary Care Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While the efficacy of sildenafil for the management of erectile dysfunction (ED) has been demonstrated in randomized clinical trials, few data exist on its effectiveness in a real-life setting. AIM: The objective of this study was to examine the treatment satisfaction and effectiveness with sildenafil in a real-life setting in Canada. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective study, using an educational program aimed at optimizing sildenafil treatment, was conducted at 231 primary care sites across Canada. Patients who received their first prescription of sildenafil for ED within the usual practice of medicine were invited to participate in the study. Data were collected through patient self-administered questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) questionnaire was used to determine the erectile function at baseline, month 3 and month 6. Treatment satisfaction at months 3 and 6 was assessed using the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 2,573 patients. The mean age was 55 years (18 to 92 years). At baseline, the mean SHIM score was 11.9 with 21.7% of men having severe ED, 22.9% moderate ED, 36.5% mild-to-moderate ED, and 16.9% mild ED. At month 3, the mean SHIM score improved significantly to 18.0 (P < 0.0001) and 33.3% of patients had a SHIM score above 21 (no ED). At 6 months, the mean SHIM score was 18.7. At both months 3 and 6, approximately 89% of patients were satisfied with their treatment (i.e., EDITS score >or= 50), suggesting no attenuation of the satisfaction over the 6 months of use. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of sildenafil in the management of ED was demonstrated in a large cohort of men treated in a primary care setting in this Canadian real-life study. Persistence with therapy and lack of attenuation over time among the vast majority of men was shown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".