Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36035357›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of urology2022

A review of regenerative therapies as penile rehabilitation in men following primary prostate cancer treatment: Evidence for erectile restoration and cavernous nerve regeneration.

Eric Chung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asian journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author.

Eric ChungAndroUrology Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The following article explores our evolving understandings of the role of regenerative technology as an effective penile rehabilitation tool in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) in the setting of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment and PCa survivorship. Methods: This narrative clinical review paper summarizes what is currently known about various modalities of regenerative therapy in restoring spontaneous erectile function (EF) in men following PCa treatment with an emphasis on penile rehabilitation strategies. Results: Conventional medical therapy often does not reverse underlying endothelial dysfunction or promote neuro-vasculogenesis to preserve penile health in men with ED. Over the past decade, there has been considerable interest in the role of regenerative therapy to restore endothelial dysfunction and ED without future dependency on medical therapy. Regenerative therapy can be classified into cellular-based (immunomodulators, stem cells, and platelet-rich plasma), biomaterials (nerve graft transfer), and device-related technology (low-intensity shockwave). Although published literature shows early promise in the role of regenerative technology for ED, there is a paucity of high-quality clinical trials in the setting of penile rehabilitation and PCa survivorship to support their use as standard care and be adopted in clinical guidelines. Conclusion: While the use of regenerative technology to restore EF is exciting and highly innovative, considerable limitations remain regarding actual clinical translation and the need for longer-term efficacy and safety data as well as governmental regulation on clinical framework and more robust clinical studies before they can be accepted as standard of care to restore EF in men following PCa treatment.

Indexed as

Erectile dysfunctionImmunomodulatorLow-intensity shockwave therapyNerve transferPenile rehabilitationPlatelet-rich plasmaRegenerative therapyStem cell therapy

Identifiers

PMID36035357
PMCPMC9399549

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.