Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27169123›Full record

ReviewThe world journal of men's health2016

Clinical Management of Priapism: A Review.

Kazuyoshi Shigehara, Mikio Namiki

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The world journal of men's health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Priapism].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kazuyoshi ShigeharaDepartments of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Ishikawa, Japan.
Mikio NamikiDepartments of Integrative Cancer Therapy and Urology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, Ishikawa, Japan.
Kanazawa Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Priapism is defined as a persistent and painful erection lasting longer than four hours without sexual stimulation. Based on episode history and pathophysiology, priapism is classified into three subtypes: ischemic (low-flow), non-ischemic (high-flow), and stuttering priapism. Ischemic priapism is characterized by a persistent, painful erection with remarkable rigidity of the corpora cavernosa caused by a disorder of venous blood outflow from this tissue mass, and is similar to penile compartment syndrome. Stuttering priapism is characterized by a self-limited, recurrent, and intermittent erection, frequently occurring in patients with sickle cell disease. Non-ischemic priapism is characterized by a painless, persistent nonsexual erection that is not fully rigid and is caused by excess arterial blood flow into the corpora cavernosa. Because ischemic and non-ischemic priapism differ based on emergency status and treatment options, appropriate discrimination of each type of priapism is required to initiate adequate clinical management. The goal of management of priapism is to achieve detumescence of the persistent penile erection and to preserve erectile function after resolution of the priapism. To achieve successful management, urologists should address this emergency clinical condition. In the present article, we review the diagnosis and clinical management of the three types of priapism.

Indexed as

Penile erectionPriapism

Identifiers

PMID27169123
PMCPMC4853765
OpenAlexW2345836182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.