Evidence Hub

A Letter to the Editor Concerning the Meta-Analysis by Zhou et al: Meta-Analysis of the Long-Term Efficacy and Tolerance of Tadalafil Daily Compared With Tadalafil On-Demand in Treating Men With Erectile Dysfunction

P. Knijnik, J. Neyeloff, B. Silva

Sexual Medicine, 2020

Abstract

The conclusion regarding the superiority of daily usage in comparison with tadalafil on demand was drawn by the analysis of the IIEF-EF questionnaire and the response to questions 2 (Sexual Encounter Profile [SEP2]) and 3 (SEP3) of the SEP Diary. In the results section, the authors reported that the tadalafil daily group had a greater increase of IIEF-EF (MD 1⁄4 1.24; 95% CI 1⁄4 0.03e2.44; P 1⁄4 0.04), SEP2 (MD 10.08; 95% CI 1⁄4 9.15e11.01; P < 0.00001) and SEP3 (MD 8.19; 95% CI 1⁄4 2.09e14.29; P < 0.00001) in comparison tadalafil on demand, which suggest the superiority of tadalafil daily. However, when we analyze the forests plots figures, we observe the opposite results: this greater improvement described in the tadalafil daily group is actually observed in tadalafil on-demand group.

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.

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