Introduction: Erectile dysfunction is a highly prevalent condition. Existing guidelines provide recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, but they are often disregarded in clinical practice in favor of a “patient-tailored” approach. Objectives: We planned a Delphi consensus method to bridge the gap between evidence-based medicine and the real-life approach in daily practice. Materials and Methods: The Advisory Board prepared 15 statements on debated topics in andrology, each including 4–6 items designed as a 5-point Likert scale. After a validation phase, the questionnaire was sent by e-mail to a panel of experts for a first round of voting; members of the panel were later invited to a second round of voting, preceded by discussion of the “hot topics” identified in the first round. Results: The first round of the Delphi consensus involved 101 experts; 71 (70%) also took part in the second round of voting. The Advisory Board deemed 22 items to be worthy of debate, and these underwent the second round of voting. “Real-life” results from the survey proved quite different from evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion: Although guidelines suggest the best approach for a “standard” patient, real-life settings require flexibility. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches should be tailored to the patients’ needs. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are recognized as the first-line therapy in both settings, including the newly introduced sildenafil orodispersible film. Indications from the panel might help close the gap between recommendations from guidelines and real-life practice in relation to the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction. Isidori AM, Giammusso B, Corona G, et al. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Workup of Erectile Dysfunction: Results From a Delphi Consensus of Andrology Experts. Sex Med 2019;7:292–302.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Workup of Erectile Dysfunction: Results From a Delphi Consensus of Andrology Experts

Verze P.
2019

Abstract

Introduction: Erectile dysfunction is a highly prevalent condition. Existing guidelines provide recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, but they are often disregarded in clinical practice in favor of a “patient-tailored” approach. Objectives: We planned a Delphi consensus method to bridge the gap between evidence-based medicine and the real-life approach in daily practice. Materials and Methods: The Advisory Board prepared 15 statements on debated topics in andrology, each including 4–6 items designed as a 5-point Likert scale. After a validation phase, the questionnaire was sent by e-mail to a panel of experts for a first round of voting; members of the panel were later invited to a second round of voting, preceded by discussion of the “hot topics” identified in the first round. Results: The first round of the Delphi consensus involved 101 experts; 71 (70%) also took part in the second round of voting. The Advisory Board deemed 22 items to be worthy of debate, and these underwent the second round of voting. “Real-life” results from the survey proved quite different from evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion: Although guidelines suggest the best approach for a “standard” patient, real-life settings require flexibility. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches should be tailored to the patients’ needs. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are recognized as the first-line therapy in both settings, including the newly introduced sildenafil orodispersible film. Indications from the panel might help close the gap between recommendations from guidelines and real-life practice in relation to the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction. Isidori AM, Giammusso B, Corona G, et al. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Workup of Erectile Dysfunction: Results From a Delphi Consensus of Andrology Experts. Sex Med 2019;7:292–302.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11386/4769602
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact