ReviewUrology annals
Comparative effectiveness radial shockwave therapy versus focused linear shockwave therapy as an erectile dysfunction treatment systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Optimizing the Use of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy for CP/CPPS: A Modality-Based Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Focused and Radial Devices.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-intensity shockwave therapy (SWT) is a promising non-invasive treatment for vasculogenic erectile dysfunction (ED). Two primary modalities, focused linear shockwave therapy (fSWT) and radial shockwave therapy (rSWT), differ in energy delivery and tissue penetration. While fSWT is well-studied, rSWT remains less explored for ED despite its growing use. This study compares the effectiveness of fSWT and rSWT in improving erectile function. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Relevant studies published between 2009 and 2024 were identified through searches in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library. Studies assessing erectile function using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), or Erection Hardness Score (EHS) were included. A random-effects model was applied to analyze standardized mean differences (SMD) and address heterogeneity. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that fSWT demonstrated superior efficacy compared to rSWT, with an SMD of 0.45 (95% CI: 0.04-0.86;
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.