Evidence Hub

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

Cappelleri JC, Tseng LJ, Stecher VJ, Althof SE

International journal of clinical practice, 2018

279 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 279 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free