Summary of findings for the main comparison.
Silboesterol versus placebo
| Silboesterol compared with placebo for stuttering priapism | ||||||
|
Patient or population: men and boys with SCD and stuttering priapism Settings: outpatients Intervention: stilboestrol 5 mg Comparison: placebo | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Placebo | Stilboestrol 5 mg | |||||
| Detumescence Follow‐up: N/A |
See comment | See comment | N/A | N/A | N/A | This outcome was not measured. |
| Reduction in stuttering priapism Follow‐up: 2 weeks |
250 per 1000 | 730 per 1000 (183 to 1000) |
RR 2.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 11.70) |
7 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | |
| Immediate side effects of treatment Follow‐up: N/A |
See comment | See comment | N/A | N/A | N/A | This outcome was not measured. |
| Effect on later sexual function Follow‐up: N/A |
See comment | See comment | N/A | N/A | N/A | This outcome was not measured. |
| Other untoward side effects of treatment Follow‐up: N/A |
See comment | See comment | N/A | N/A | N/A | This outcome was not measured. |
| Efficacy of a prevention strategy Follow‐up: N/A |
See comment | See comment | N/A | N/A | N/A | This outcome was not measured. |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across trials) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; N/A: not applicable; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1. Downgraded once due to unclear methods of randomisation and allocation. 2. Downgraded twice for imprecision: confidence intervals around the relative effect are very wide as the trial has a small number of participants and a low event rate.