Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30232721›Full record

Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2018

Efficacy and safety of low-intensity shock wave therapy in penile rehabilitation post nerve-sparing radical cystoprostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

Tamer S Zewin, Ahmed El-Assmy, Ahmed M Harraz, Mahmoud Bazeed, Ahmed A Shokeir, Khaled Sheir, Ahmed Mosbah

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tamer S ZewinUrology Department, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Ahmed El-AssmyUrology Department, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. a_assmy@yahoo.com.
Ahmed M HarrazUrology Department, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Mahmoud BazeedUrology Department, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Ahmed A ShokeirUrology Department, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Khaled SheirUrology Department, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Ahmed MosbahUrology Department, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Mansoura University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the role of low-intensity extra corporeal shock wave therapy (LI-ESWT) in penile rehabilitation (PR) post nerve-sparing radical cystoprostatectomy (NS-RCP). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study included 152 sexually active men with muscle invasive bladder cancer. After bilateral NS-RCP with orthotopic diversion by a single expert surgeon between June 2014 and July 2016, 128 patients were available categorized into three groups: LI-ESWT group (42 patients), phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE5i) group (43 patients), and control group (43 patients).

resultsMean age was 53.2 ± 6.5 years. Mean ± SD follow-up period was 21 ± 8 months. During first follow-up FU1, all patients of the three groups had insufficient erection for vaginal penetration; with decrease of preoperative IIEF-EF mean score from 27.9 to 6.9. Potency recovery rates at 9 months were 76.2%, 79.1%, and 60.5% in LI-ESWT, PDE5i, and control groups, respectively. There was statistically significant increase in IIEF-EF and EHS scores during all follow-up periods in all the study groups (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the three groups during all follow-up periods. Statistical evaluation showed no significant difference in continence and oncological outcomes during all follow-up points among the three groups (p = 0.55 and 0.07, respectively).

conclusionsDuring last follow-up, 16% more patients in LI-ESWT group had recovery of potency as compared to the control group. Although the difference is not statistically significant, but of clinical importance. LI-ESWT is safe as oral PDE5i in penile rehabilitation post nerve-sparing radical cystoprostatectomy.

Indexed as

AdultCarcinomaCystectomyErectile DysfunctionExtracorporeal Shockwave TherapyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhosphodiesterase 5 InhibitorsProstatectomyRecovery of FunctionTreatment OutcomeUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsPhosphodiesterase 5 InhibitorsCystoprostatectomyLow-intensity shock waveNerve sparingPenile rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID30232721
OpenAlexW2891497952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.