Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34635804›Full record

Trial reportProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2022

Outcomes and clinical predictors of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Ahmed M Sakr, Amr M Fawzi, Mostafa Kamel, Maged M Ali

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07066735 (Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Combined Extracorporeal Shock- Wave Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT07066735 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Combined Extracorporeal Shock- Wave Therapy (ESWT) With Phytotherapy Versus Each of Them Alone in Chronic Prostatitis Category ⅢB

TypeinterventionalSponsorAin Shams UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled90ConditionsChronic Prostatitis (CP)ArmsESWT, Phytotherapy that contains powder extract of (saw palmetto , tomato , uva ursi , pygeum and pumpkin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahmed M SakrUrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Amr M FawziUrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Mostafa KamelUrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Maged M AliUrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt. dr_magood@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1914-0110
Zagazig University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo report the one-year results of ESWT on CPPS patients and the possible clinical characteristics that may affect its efficacy. PATIENTS &

methodsA prospective randomized clinical study between January 2017 and January 2021 on 155 adult patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome. All patients were initially evaluated with a thorough history and physical examination. Baseline symptoms evaluation of each participant was assessed using NIH-CPSI score, IPSS, VAS, and IIEF-5 score. Patients were randomized into two groups: a verum treatment group and a placebo treatment group. Patients of verum group in the lithotomy position received a perineally applied ESWT treatment once a week for four weeks with 3000 impulses each. Patients of placebo group received the same therapy head of the same device with a layer of air-filled microspheres to absorb the shock waves. The previously mentioned validated scores were reassessed on regular follow-up visits at one, three, six, and 12 months after the completion of ESWT.

resultsA statistically significant improvement was noticed in the mean values of NIH-CPSI, IPSS, VAS, and IIEF-5 of the patients of verum group over the follow-up period with also statistically significant difference between both groups. At the first visit of follow-up after ESWT, 63 (82.8%) patients had ≥6 points decrease in the NIH-CPSI total score, while 13 (17.2%) patients did not. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the clinical characteristics between the responders and non-responders showed that those patients with history of psychological disorders or had higher initial NIH-CPSI score had a significantly lower response rate to ESWT (p = 0.005, 0.02 & p = 0.002, 0.004 respectively). ROC curve of NIH-CPSI score showed that a score of 32 was the cut-off point above which the response to ESWT decreased.

conclusionESWT is an effective treatment option for CPPS. Its efficacy remained throughout long-term follow up. High initial NIH-CPSI score and history of psychological problems are significant predictors for it.

Indexed as

Chronic PainExtracorporeal Shockwave TherapyProstatic NeoplasmsProstatitisAdultChronic DiseaseHumansMalePelvic PainProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34635804
OpenAlexW3206256575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.