Comparison of Effect of Nebivolol and Bisoprolol on Sexual Function of Hypertensive Female Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Male and female sexual dysfunction is frequently found in patients with hypertension. Many studies indicate that this is found more frequently in patients treated with beta-blockers rather than due to hypertension itself; however, almost all studies have been done on male population. This study aims to study the effect of two commonly used beta-blockers on sexual function of a hypertensive female patient. Methods This two-arm open-label randomized prospective study was conducted from April 1, 2019 to March 30, 2020 in a tertiary care hospital at Pakistan. One hundred and fifty participants randomized to group A were given nebivolol 5 mg once daily in addition to their current hypertensive treatment. Another 150 participants randomized to group B were given bisoprolol 5 mg once daily in addition to their hypertensive therapy. Sexual function was assessed on day 0 and day 90 using female sexual function index (FSFI). Results The mean sexual score in the nebivolol group significantly improved after day 90 in comparison to day 0 (24.16 ± 2.1 vs. 26.91 ± 2.6; p-value < 0.0001), while no difference in sexual score in bisoprolol group after day 90 was observed (24.14 ± 2.1 vs. 24.12 ± 2.0; p-value = 0.91). Conclusion In this study, nebivolol group was associated with a significant improvement in sexual function. This can be due to additional vasodilation properties and a low risk of sexual side effects associated with nebivolol.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".