Testosterone therapy in hypogonadal men: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative effects of individual testosterone products among hypogonadal men. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and grey literature (25 May 2017) for randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) that involved hypogonadal men given testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) for ≥3 months. Comparators were placebo, another TRT, or the same product at a different dose. Outcomes were quality of life, depression, libido, erectile function, activities of daily living and testosterone levels, as well as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, prostate cancer, heart disease, diabetes, serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and erythrocytosis. RCT data were pooled via meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool (RCTs) andScottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)50 (NRS). RESULTS: Eighty-seven RCTs and 51 NRS were included. Most were at high or unclear risk of bias, with short treatment duration and follow-up. When compared as a class against placebo, TRT improved quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.11), libido (SMD 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.50), depression (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.01) and erectile function (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.41). Most individual TRTs were significantly better than placebo at improving libido (6/10). Only one TRT was better than placebo at improving quality of life, and no individual TRTs improved depression or erectile function. There was no increased risk of adverse events, with the exception of withdrawals due to adverse events with the use of some TRTs. CONCLUSION: Despite a class effect of improving quality of life, depression, erectile function and libido, major improvements were not observed with the use of any individual product. We observed no statistically significant increase in the risk of adverse events; however, longer-term high-quality trials are needed to fully assess the risk of harm. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014009963.
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 | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".