ReviewThe world journal of men's health2024
Variations in Low Intensity Shockwave Treatment Protocols for Erectile Dysfunction: A Review of the Literature and Guide to Offering Treatment.
Review in The world journal of men's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Therapeutic Effect of Micro-Energy Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Short-term safety and preliminary patient-reported outcomes of bipolar radiofrequency therapy for mild-to-moderate erectile dysfunction: a prospective single-arm pilot study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Low-intensity shock wave therapy for penile rehabilitation in patients with erectile dysfunction following pelvic fracture urethral injury: a pilot study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Erectile Dysfunction: A Comprehensive Review of Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Contemporary Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- The Role of Different Modalities of Regenerative Therapies in the Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: A Global Survey and Global Andrology Forum Expert Recommendations.The world journal of men's health · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) combined with tadalafil in the treatment of severe erectile dysfunction: a retrospective cohort study.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiSWT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) continues to gain popularity in both clinical practice and the academic literature. The majority of trials and meta-analysis studies have shown LiSWT to be low risk with a trend toward positive improvements in International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores. However, there is still debate over the clinical utility of LiSWT and there is no agreed upon optimal treatment protocol. In this review article we summarize published meta-analysis studies of LiSWT for ED, and review the treatment protocols from randomized sham-control trials published in the last 10 years. We found the most common device settings were an energy of 0.09 mJ/mm² and a frequency of 5 Hz. Shock number and location varied, but the most common protocol was 1,500 shocks per session, with 900 shocks to the penis (shaft, base, or hilum) and 600 shocks to the proximal corpora/crura. Protocols ranged from 4 to 12 treatment sessions. We also describe our institutional experience with LiSWT, including patient counseling and treatment protocol.
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.