SynthesisBritish medical bulletin2025
Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction: rethinking study design, implementation, and analysis.
Synthesis in British medical bulletin, 2025. 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.
- Explosive shock wave exposure leads to age-accelerated motor and sensory decline inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExtracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) presents a challenging paradox. While numerous clinical studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses have been published, indicating a substantial body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of ESWT, significant questions remain. Notably, the American Urological Association (AUA) continues to classify ESWT for ED as investigational (Evidence Level: Grade C), suggesting that the true therapeutic effect of ESWT may differ considerably from current estimates. This review aims to critically assess the evidence and propose strategies to address this unresolved discrepancy. SOURCE OF DATA: We systematically searched two electronic databases (PubMed and Ovid/Embase) and published systematic reviews on ESWT for ED and compiled a systematic literature review and meta-analysis based on 87 relevant studies. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: There is clear evidence that ESWT for ED is effective and can therefore be a valuable treatment modality in the management of ED. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Current assessments of ESWT for ED as investigational by, e.g. the AUA may not stem from a lack of clinical studies, insufficient related basic science, or an inadequate number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Instead, the deficits lie in the area of the scientific quality of the clinical studies published to date. GROWING POINTS: We hypothesize that this unfortunate situation will only change if the following aspects are rigorously considered in future clinical studies on ESWT for ED: adequate characterization and reporting of extracorporeal shock waves, appropriate handling of missing data and intercurrent events, and comprehensive classification of ESWT in the overall context of the available treatment options for ED. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: We are convinced that the consistent implementation of these aspects will significantly contribute to establishing ESWT as the first truly regenerative therapy in the management of ED. This overall aim justifies the corresponding efforts for the benefit of our patients.
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.