ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2020
Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy among urologist practitioners: how the opinion of urologists changed between 2016 and 2019.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (Li-ESWT) for erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy among urologist practitioners: how the opinion of urologists changed between 2016 and 2019.International journal of impotence research · 2022Article
- Low-intensity shock wave therapy for the treatment of vasculogenic erectile dysfunction: a narrative review of technical considerations and treatment outcomes.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 14 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the past few years, an increase use of low-intensity shockwave therapy (LISWT) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) has been observed. However, many controversies in the scientific literature about its efficacy still exist. We aimed to investigate changes in the pattern of usage and attitudes toward LISWT for ED among experts over the last years. A dedicated online survey was sent to delegates at the Congress for the EAU Section of Andrological Urology (ESAU) in Prague from 31st October to 1st November 2019. The survey captured demographic data, professional background, and the experience and personal knowledge about LISWT. The results were compared with a previous survey conducted in 2016 and investigating the same topics in order to assess changes in the knowledge and opinion on LISWT over time. Overall, 172 and 192 questionnaires were available from 2019 and 2016, respectively. Participants in the 2019 survey were 80 (45.7%) urologists, 52 (29.7%) uro-andrologists, and 34 (19.4%) residents in urology, from 30 different countries. Compared to the past, we observed an increase of respondents who were familiar with LISWT (75 vs. 95%; p < 0.0001) and who performed LISWT in their routine practice (38% in 2019 vs. 14% in 2016; p < 0.0001). Conversely, no changes in terms of overall perception of treatment efficacy were registered over time (68% in 2019 vs. 72% in 2016 considered LISWT as an effective treatment, respectively (p = 0.5)). An increased proportion of physicians had suggested a wider application of LISWT, and some even advocated its use in nonvasculogenic ED (33% in 2019 vs. 5.9% in 2016; p < 0.0001). The awareness and clinical application of LISWT for ED have increased over time, despite the lack of robust evidence in terms of effectiveness. Further research on the benefit of LISWT is needed to guide physicians in the therapeutic management of ED patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.