Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31239541›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2019

Physical activity as an adjunct treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Mark S Allen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark S AllenFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. mark_allen@uow.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5511-9680
University of Wollongong · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing data are available to suggest that physical activity and lifestyle modification in general can benefit erectile function, with effect sizes comparable with established treatment options such as testosterone therapy and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. Despite this evidence, primary-care physicians are rarely afforded critical information on the underlying mechanisms through which physical activity works as a treatment, severely hampering treatment credibility for both physician and patient. Physical activity is associated with psychological and metabolic adaptations that are compatible with the adaptations required for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). These adaptations include increased expression and activity of nitric oxide synthase, strengthened endothelial function, acute rises in testosterone, decreased stress and anxiety, and improved body image. Use of physical activity as a first-line treatment option for ED is limited, and explicit physical activity guidelines for the treatment of ED are required. Such guidelines should include not only a suggested exercise programme but also guidelines for physician-patient communication that might enhance patient receptivity and therapy continuation. An understanding of how physical activity affects erectile function, as well as its effectiveness in treating ED compared with other established treatments, can benefit urologists and primary-care physicians searching for noninvasive treatment options for men presenting with poor erectile function.

Indexed as

ExerciseExercise TherapyErectile DysfunctionHumansMalePractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID31239541
OpenAlexW2954844010

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.