SynthesisInternational journal of impotence research2025
The effectiveness of electrical stimulation in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in International journal of impotence research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Electrical stimulation for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.International journal of impotence research · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to summarize in a systematic review the current evidence on the effectiveness of electrical stimulation in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we performed a literature search for randomized controlled trials using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science, and searched unpublished studies and trial registrations. We used Cochrane's risk-of-bias assessment tool and GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence. From 3 586 potentially relevant records, we included three trials. Overall, 82 men with erectile dysfunction (20-65 years old), assessed using the IIEF-5 questionnaire, were randomized. Transcutaneous electrical stimulation was compared to placebo (Mean difference-MD:4.60, 95% Confidence interval-CI 0.28-8.92, n = 22), aerobic exercise (MD:6.50, 95%CI 5.10-7.90, n = 30), and used in association with pelvic floor muscle training with biofeedback and compared to the same procedure without electrical stimulation (MD:4.80, 95% CI 1.29-8.31, n = 30). We were unable to combine studies for meta-analysis due to clinical heterogeneity. This review was limited by the quality of existing evidence. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to risk of bias and small sample sizes. There is inconclusive evidence of the effectiveness of electrical stimulation in the treatment of erectile dysfunction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39962319What 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.