Comment on: "Scrotal approach for tunica expansion procedure (TEP) for penile girth and length restoration in patients with penile angulation due to Peyronie's disease and erectile dysfunction: technique and outcomes".

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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Scrotal approach for tunica expansion procedure (TEP) for penile girth and length restoration during penile prosthesis implantation in patients with penile angulation due to Peyronie's disease and erectile dysfunction: technique and outcomes.2024

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as