ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2021
Generating comprehensive comparative evidence on various interventions for penile rehabilitation in patients with erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2021. 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.
- Management of Post-RALP SUI and ED - What are and What Should we be Doing?Current urology reports · 2024Review
- A contemporary review of the treatments and challenges associated with penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy including a proposed optimal approach.International journal of impotence research · 2024Review
- Pathological Significance of Macrophages in Erectile Dysfunction Including Peyronie's Disease.Biomedicines · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aim to present a comprehensive comparison of various treatments in the management of penile recovery after radical prostatectomy (RP) and provide recommendations for future research.
methodsLiterature search of electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycInfo, and Web of Science, and manual retrieval were conducted from inception through March 2020. "Erectile dysfunction" and "prostatectomy" were used as the Mesh terms. The patients, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design (PICOS) approach were used to define study eligibility. Two authors independently selected studies, evaluated the methodological quality, and extracted data using Cochrane Collaboration's tools. The data analysis was completed by STATA version 14.2.
resultsA total of 24 studies with 3,500 patients were incorporated in the final analysis after screening 6,131 records. Our findings indicated that vacuum constriction devices (VCD) ranked 1st which meant that patients in VCD group had the best effect regarding mean IIEF scores within 3 months after RP, and no significant difference was observed between VCD and VCD with 20 mg/day tadalafil (V20DT) (MD: 5.44; 95% CI: -0.81 to 11.69). VCD and 50 mg/day sildenafil (VC50DS) showed superiority over 50 mg/day sildenafil (50DS) (MD: 3.75; 95% CI: 2.74-4.76) and intraurethral alprostadil 125-250 µg (MD: 3.05; 95% CI: 0.38 to 5.72), respectively. Moreover, V20DT showed significant superiority over the other interventions for ≥6 months mean International Index Erectile of Function (IIEF) scores after RP. Monotherapy appeared to have similar efficacy in terms of mean IIEF scores and proportion of patients return to baseline, and the effect of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is) did not seem to be affected by the patterns of administration (regular or on demand).
conclusionsThe combination therapy showed certain advantages over monotherapy, and we recommended the combination of VCD and PDE5is to be considered in the clinical management of penile rehabilitation after RP.
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.