Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32696128›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2021

Penile low intensity shock wave treatment for PDE5I refractory erectile dysfunction: a randomized double-blind sham-controlled clinical trial.

Jose Vinay, Daniel Moreno, Osvaldo Rajmil, Eduard Ruiz-Castañe, Josvany Sanchez-Curbelo

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Jose VinayAndrology Department, Fundació Puigvert/Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Cartagena, 340-350, 08025, Barcelona, Spain. jose.vinay@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7883-1782
Daniel MorenoAndrology Department, Fundació Puigvert/Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Cartagena, 340-350, 08025, Barcelona, Spain.
Osvaldo RajmilAndrology Department, Fundació Puigvert/Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Cartagena, 340-350, 08025, Barcelona, Spain.
Eduard Ruiz-CastañeAndrology Department, Fundació Puigvert/Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Cartagena, 340-350, 08025, Barcelona, Spain.
Josvany Sanchez-CurbeloAndrology Department, Fundació Puigvert/Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Cartagena, 340-350, 08025, Barcelona, Spain.
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOver the last decade, penile low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-ESWT) has emerged as a promising alternative for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). The aim of this trial is to assess the effect of electromagnetic LI-ESWT on the erectile function of vascular phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5I) refractory ED patients.

methodsRandomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study. 76 patients with vascular PDE5I-refractory ED completed the study. 40 men were treated with LI-ESWT (1 session/week for 4 weeks, 5000 shocks/session, 0.09 mJ/mm

resultsAt the 3-month follow-up, median change in IIEF-EF score for active and sham groups was 3.5 (IQR 0-10) and - 0.5 (IQR - 11 to 1), respectively (p < 0.05). Six months after treatment, 52.5% of patients (21/40) in the active group and 27.8% of patients (10/36) in the sham group presented an EHS > 2 (p < 0.05). At the same evaluation, 40.0% (16/40) and 13.9% (5/36) of patients had positive answers to GAQ-1, in the treated and sham groups, respectively (p < 0.05). No adverse events were observed during the study.

conclusionThis study showed that penile electromagnetic shockwave therapy may improve erectile function, to a modest extent, on certain patients that do not respond to PDE5I; making it an alternative for vascular ED patients that reject more invasive therapies.

Indexed as

AgedDouble-Blind MethodErectile DysfunctionExtracorporeal Shockwave TherapyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPenisPhosphodiesterase 5 InhibitorsProspective StudiesPhosphodiesterase 5 InhibitorsErectile dysfunctionLow intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapyNeo-angiogenesisNerve regeneration

Identifiers

PMID32696128
OpenAlexW3044771585

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.