Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39450208›Full record

ArticleSexual medicine2024

A review of Peyronie's disease insurance coverage.

Nicholas Hricz, Kevin Schlidt, Michael Ha, Seray Er, Katarina Stark, Esther Jung, Fan Liang, Yvonne M Rasko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual medicine, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Nicholas HriczDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4156-5748
Kevin SchlidtDepartment of Surgery, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD 21215, United States.
Michael HaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States.
Seray ErDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States.
Katarina StarkDepartment of Urology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98101, United States.
Esther JungDepartment of Surgery, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD 21215, United States.
Fan LiangDepartment of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States.
Yvonne M RaskoDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Peyronie's disease (PD) is a fibroproliferative disorder that causes an abnormal curve of the penis resulting in pain, discomfort, and erectile dysfunction with management options including correctional surgery, penile external/internal devices, shock wave therapy (SWT), intralesional Verapamil (IV), and collagenase Aim: To investigate the insurance coverage of these treatment options. Methods: The authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of the top US insurance policies for coverage of PD. Companies were chosen based on their market share and enrollment. Their policies were identified through a Web-based search and telephone interviews, and the companies' medical necessity criteria were defined. The online policies were then re-examined for interval change 3 years later. Outcomes: There are significant discrepancies for in coverage for the different modalities of Peyronie's treatment. Results: Of the 100 companies examined, only 54% of companies had a policy that directly addressed the treatment coverage for PD. The most covered treatment was CCH injections with 37 companies providing unanimous coverage ( Clinical Implications: Insurance coverage of PD should be aligned with current medical literature to better increase access to care. Strengths & Limitations: This study is limited by the updated policies of insurance companies and future applicability. Additionally, this study assumes that a written policy will provide coverage and may overestimate the actual extent of coverage. Finally, this study only addressed some of the common treatment options of PD and did not expand on all possible treatment options. Conclusion: Differing rates for modalities of treatment may present a barrier for patients to receive individualized and adequate treatment for PD.

Indexed as

cross sectional analysiserectile dysfunctioninsurancePeyronie’s

Identifiers

PMID39450208
PMCPMC11500605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.