Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33209675›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2020

Retrospective comparison of focused shockwave therapy and radial wave therapy for men with erectile dysfunction.

Shannon S Wu, Kyle J Ericson, Daniel A Shoskes

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Survey of the quality and origins of websites on penile low-intensity shockwave therapy in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shannon S WuCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Kyle J EricsonDepartment of Urology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Daniel A ShoskesDepartment of Urology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USCleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-intensity shockwave therapy (SWT) is an emerging treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). Devices used for SWT include focused shockwave therapy (fSWT) or radial wave therapy (rWT), which differ in how the waves are generated, their tissue penetration, and the shape of their pressure waves. Most studies of SWT for ED to date have utilized fSWT. Although widely used, the efficacy of rWT for ED is unknown. Our objective is to compare the efficacy of rWT and fSWT for ED at our institution.

methodsA retrospective chart review was performed to identify all men with ED treated by fSWT or rWT. Men with history suggesting non-vasculogenic ED were excluded. All men received 6 consecutive weekly treatments. The fSWT group received 3,000 shocks per treatment at 0.09 mJ/mm

resultsA total of 48 men were included: 24 treated by fSWT and 24 by rWT. There were no significant differences in age, duration of ED, pre-treatment PDE5i use, or pre-treatment SHIM scores between the groups. Following treatment with rWT, the mean SHIM score improved from 9.3 to 16.1 (P<0.001). The mean SHIM following fSWT improved from 9.3 to 15.5 (P<0.001). The mean improvement in SHIM score did not differ between rWT (6.8) and fSWT (6.2) (P=0.42). 54% of men treated by fSWT experienced a significant clinical improvement (≥ grade 2 response) compared to 75% in the rWT group (P=0.42). There were no reported side effects with either device.

conclusionsIn our patient population, both fSWT and rWT were moderately effective treatments for arteriogenic ED with no observable difference in efficacy between the two modalities.

Indexed as

erectile dysfunction (ED)focused shockwave therapy (fSWT)Low-intensity shockwave therapy (low-intensity SWT)radial shockwave therapy

Identifiers

PMID33209675
PMCPMC7658170
OpenAlexW3092984027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.