Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38196554›Full record

ReviewProstate international2023

Reviving intimacy: Penile rehabilitation strategies for men after prostate cancer treatment.

James Stinson, Nelson Bennett

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Prostate international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James StinsonDivision of Urology, Cook County Health and Hospitals System, Chicago IL, USA.
Nelson BennettDepartment of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL, USA.
Cook County Health and Hospitals System · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There have been considerable advances in the field of penile rehabilitation for upwards of 90% of men adversely affected by either short-term or long-term erectile dysfunction after definitive prostate cancer treatment. Despite the evolving landscape of treatment modalities for penile rehabilitation, there is a lack of consensus in the urologic community on the best therapies due to the level of evidence and efficacies of the current and emerging offerings. This review of current and next-generation interventions provides a practical approach to the myriad of data to make a better-informed decision based on the pathophysiology and highest-quality evidence available.

Indexed as

Erectile dysfunctionErectile functionPenile rehabilitationProstate cancerSexual function

Identifiers

PMID38196554
PMCPMC10772180
OpenAlexW4379929885

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.