Evidence Hub

Dapoxetine in treatment of premature ejaculation: a systematic review

Wang YB, Mao Y, Wei Q, Wu TX, Dong Q

Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences, 2010

4,433 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of dapoxetine in the treatment of premature ejaculation.

METHODS: Both English and Chinese studies involving men with prematrue ejaculation who were treated with dapoxetine from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CNKI, CBM, VIP between 1979 and 2009.were included in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the data processed by RevMan.

RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 4433 patients were included in the Meta analysis, of which 3 were of grade A and 2 were of grade B according to the quality evaluation of methodology. Intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT), patient-reported global impression of change (PGI), satisfaction with sexual intercourse (SWSI), perceived control over ejaculation (PCOE), personal distress related to ejaculation (PDRE) were used for assessment. Meta analysis based on included studies of patients having been treated with dapoxetine for 9-24 weeks showed that: (1) the difference of the patients' IELT between treatment group and control group was statistically significant [P<0.001, WMD (95%CI) was 1.38 (1.21,1.55)]; (2) the difference of the PGI of development in premature ejaculation between treatment group and control group was statistically significant [P<0.001, OR (95%CI) was 3.56 (2.60,4.88)]; (3) the difference of the patients' SWSI between treatment group and control group was statistically significant [P<0.001, OR (95%CI) was 3.85 (2.08,7.10)]; the difference of the patients' score of SWSI between…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,433 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