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 Liken 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. Copyright (C) 2019, The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.

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

Barbonetti, Arcangelo;D'Andrea, Settimio;
2019-01-01

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 Liken 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. Copyright (C) 2019, The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

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: https://hdl.handle.net/11697/226191
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 20
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 19
social impact