ArticleUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[New "conservative" treatments for Peyronie's disease-real alternatives or expensive pastime?]
Article in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conservative treatment of Peyronie's disease (induratio penis plastica, IPP) remains largely unsuccessful despite decades of research, as the exact disease pathogenesis remains unclear. Currently, IPP is understood as a benign, localized, progressive connective tissue disorder of the tunica albuginea, in which repetitive microtrauma triggers an inflammatory process leading to fibrosis formation. The new "conservative" treatment approaches focus on immune-modulatory and regenerative mechanisms, but significant therapeutic success is still lacking. Treatments such as extracorporeal shockwave therapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stem cell therapy, hyaluronic acid, and botulinum toxin are promising theoretical approaches, but their efficacy is often contradictory and they remain disputed and inadequately supported by studies. Research on these therapeutic approaches is often limited by extremely high costs and the regulations for clinical studies according to the Medicines Act, albeit necessary to further evaluate their effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39384594What 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.