ArticleUrology practice2022
Shock Wave Therapy for Erectile Dysfunction: Marketing and Practice Trends in Major Metropolitan Areas in the United States.
Article in Urology practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction: rethinking study design, implementation, and analysis.British medical bulletin · 2025Pooled it
- Use of Secondary Reflectors for Enhanced ESWT Treatment of the Penis.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Patient out-of-pocket costs for guideline-recommended treatments for erectile dysfunction: a medicare cost modeling analysis.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Variations in Low Intensity Shockwave Treatment Protocols for Erectile Dysfunction: A Review of the Literature and Guide to Offering Treatment.The world journal of men's health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDue to the increasing prevalence of erectile dysfunction (ED) and pronounced distress for patients, a direct-to-consumer market for shock wave therapy (SWT) has emerged. We sought to evaluate trends in marketing and implementation of SWT as a restorative treatment for ED in large metropolitan areas by investigating cost to patients, provider credentials and treatment protocols.
methodsSWT providers in 8 of the most populous metropolitan areas were identified using Google search. Search queries included: "Shockwave therapy for erectile dysfunction in [city];" "Shockwave therapy for ED in [city];" and "GAINSWave in [city]." All clinics advertising SWT for ED within the boundaries of the selected metropolitan area were included. Using a "secret shopper" methodology, clinics were contacted by telephone with the goal of identifying the pricing, duration and provider administering the treatment.
resultsAcross 8 of the most populous cities in the U.S., 152 clinics offered SWT as a treatment for ED. Comprehensive information was available for 65% of the clinics; 25% of providers offering SWT were urologists while 13% were not physicians. The average price per treatment course was $3,338.28. Treatment duration was highly variable and ranged from 1 to indefinite courses based on individual patient circumstance.
conclusionsSWT, as a restorative therapy for ED, is performed primarily by nonurologists and is not standardized. Direct-to-consumer marketing is used to target distressed men. This study highlights concerning trends in major metropolitan markets, given the substantial financial impact for patients and inconsistent credentials among providers. Further, these findings suggest that patients are frequently seeking care for ED from nonurologists.
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.