ReviewTherapeutics and clinical risk management2023
The Efficacy and Safety of Avanafil During a Treatment of Male Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phosphodiesterase inhibitors as emerging therapeutics for skeletal disorders: A comprehensive review of mechanisms and repurposing potential.Bone reports · 2026Review
- Phytochemical-based nanomedicine as a promising therapeutic strategy for erectile dysfunction.Asian journal of andrology · 2026Review
- Impact of Second-Generation PDE 5 Inhibitor, Avanafil, on Retinal Function: Studies From Ex Vivo ERG.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Erectile dysfunction (ED) contributes to a large burden and impairs the quality of life among males. Avanafil appears to be a promising treatment for ED; however, its efficacy and safety profile remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of avanafil for the treatment of ED. Patients and Methods: An extensive search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Embase databases with 11 publications was performed, with outcomes evaluated are International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function (IIEF-EF), Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP), and Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE). Statistical parameter Mean Difference (MD) and Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were used to measure effect size. Results: The pooled estimates demonstrated that changes in IIEF-EF function (MD=4.39, 95% CI [3.41, 5.37], p<0.001), SEP-2 (RR=3.43, 95% CI [2.79, 4.22], p<0.001), SEP-3 (RR=2.30, 95% CI [2.01, 2.62], p<0.001), and TEAE (RR=1.49, 95% CI [1.12, 1.96], p=0.005) were significantly higher in the avanafil group than in the placebo group. Moreover, 200 mg avanafil was superior to that mg 100 mg-avanafil, indicated by the IIEF-EF score (MD=-1.15, 95% CI [-1.40, -0.89], p<0.001). In contrary, there were no significant differences in SEP-2 (RR=0.90, 95% CI [0.75, 1.08], p=0.26), SEP-3 (RR=0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.05], p=0.21) and TEAE (RR=1.00, 95% CI [0.87, 1.15], p=0.99) for both 100 mg and 200 mg doses. Conclusion: This review highlights the potential use of this drug in ED treatment. Further large-scale Randomized Controlled Trials investigations involving various racial groups are required to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.