A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Clinically important difference on the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction questionnaire in patients with erectile dysfunction. | LitMetric

Aim: To determine what constitutes a clinically important difference (CID) on the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), an 11-item validated questionnaire assessing treatment satisfaction used in clinical trials for patients with erectile dysfunction (ED).

Methods: Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction data were evaluated from a double-blind, fixed-dose trial of 279 men aged 18-65 years with ED who were treated with sildenafil 50 or 100 mg or placebo. The primary anchor measure was the erectile function (EF) domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), which has a 4-point minimal CID. The CID on the EDITS index score was determined using a regression analysis comparing EDITS and IIEF EF scores at the end of the 8-week treatment. A similar analysis was performed for EDITS and the Erection Hardness Score (EHS) instrument, a single-item questionnaire measuring hardness, which was used as a secondary anchor measure.

Results: Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction and IIEF EF domain scores were highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.75). EDITS total scores across treatments at week 8 averaged (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) 67.5 ± 21.6 (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate greater treatment satisfaction); IIEF EF domain scores averaged 22.2 ± 6.9 (range, 1-30; higher scores indicate higher erectile functioning). The calculated CID for EDITS scores was 9.5 (95% CI, 8.5-10.4; 0.44 SD units), corresponding to a medium effect size. EDITS and EHS instrument scores also correlated highly (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.64). Placebo-adjusted EDITS mean scores were more than twice the CID, at 23 (95% CI, 17-28) and 28 (95% CI, 23-33) for the 50- and 100-mg doses, respectively.

Conclusion: Approximately 10 points on the EDITS index score is considered a CID. Serving as a benchmark, this finding aids interpretation of the clinical relevance of a difference in mean EDITS index scores between treatments for patients with ED.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13073DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

erectile dysfunction
24
treatment satisfaction
24
dysfunction inventory
16
inventory treatment
16
edits scores
12
edits
10
scores
10
erectile
9
clinically difference
8
patients erectile
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!