The Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Erectile Dysfunction Treatment and Management Published in the Sexual Medicine Literature

Abstract

Introduction Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common medical condition that requires high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice; however, systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) often vary in quality, raising concerns regarding the validity of their results. Aim To perform an objective analysis of SRs and MAs in ED treatment and management and to report on the quality of published literature. Methods A comprehensive search in PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE of 12 high-impact urology journals was used to identify relevant publications. 2 authors independently performed searches, screened citations for eligibility, extracted data for analysis, and graded methodologic quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. Main Outcome Measures The main outcome was AMSTAR score, which is a validated tool to evaluate the quality of SRs and MAs. Results 31 publications met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean AMSTAR score (± SD) among all publications was 6.5 (±2.2) of 11, reflecting “fair to good” quality. 74.2% of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on pharmaceutical therapy for ED, with 51.6% studying the effect of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Only 1 SR/MA studied intracavernosal injection therapy and vacuum erection devices. No publications studied intraurethral injection therapy or implantable penile prostheses. Although not statistically significant, there has been a trend of increasing quality of SRs/MAs over time (P = .072). Clinical Implication The methodologic quality of SRs/MAs should be assessed to ensure high-quality evidence for clinical practice guidelines in ED treatment and management. Strength & Limitation The data showed that methodologic quality of SRs/MAs in the treatment and management of ED is increasing over time. 12 high-impact urology journals were included in our search, which may introduce selection bias in our results. Conclusions This review highlights a need for increased effort to study second- and third-line treatments for patients who fail oral therapy.

Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis

“…It has been shown that AMSTAR scores for erectile dysfunction treatment systematic reviews have a "fair to good" quality. 26 The AMSTAR 2 items can be found in Table 2.…”

A Review of Current and Emerging Therapeutic Options for Erectile Dysfunction

“…The clinical efficacy and safety profile of PDE5i has been reported by numerous high-quality, well-designed, blinded, randomized controlled trials comparing PDE5i both to placebo and to other PDE5i drugs [3,4,5,6]. Overall, oral PDE5i in recommended doses is an effective medical therapy for ED with an excellent safety profile and is generally well tolerated.…”

Effect of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis combined with a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor on erectile dysfunction

“…Erectile dysfunction (ED) is defined as a persistent inability to obtain or maintain an erection for satisfying sexual intercourse. 1 Worldwide, up to 50% of men aged 40 to 70 years have ED. 2 An increasing amount of evidence shows that ED is caused by the interaction of multiple physiologic systems, such as endocrine, neural, and vascular systems.…”