ArticleBasic and clinical andrology2025
Evaluation of magnetic stimulation as a non-invasive technique in treating different causes of erectile dysfunction: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Basic and clinical andrology, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElaboration of alternative therapeutic modality is needed, which should be safer, less costly and with no side effects. Functional Magnetic Stimulator (FMS) is a technique that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1998. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FMS in treating different causes of erectile dysfunction (ED).
resultsThe mean baseline 15 items of the international index of erectile function (IIEF-15) scores of groups A (arteriogenic ED), B (veno-occlusive ED) and C (psychogenic ED) were 12.8 ± 2.6, 16.2 ± 3.3 and 27.5 ± 3.7, respectively. The mean post sessions IIEF-15 scores of groups A, B and C were 23.4 ± 4.1, 31.5 ± 3.5, 49.2 ± 3.5, respectively. The mean baseline domains of erectile function (EF) scores of groups A, B and C were 3.8 ± 2, 5.8 ± 3.5 and 11.5 ± 3.1, respectively. The mean post sessions domains of EF scores of groups A, B and C were 10.6 ± 3.1, 15 ± 3.6 and 24.8 ± 2.9, respectively. The mean baseline domains of orgasmic function scores of groups A, B and C were 3.3 ± 0.9, 3.9 ± 0.5 and 4.8 ± 0.4, respectively. The mean post sessions domains of orgasmic function scores of groups A, B and C were 4.8 ± 0.8 5.9 ± 1.0 and 8.6 ± 0.5, respectively. The mean baseline domains of sexual desire scores of groups A, B and C were 2.6 ± 0.6, 3.1 ± 0.7 and 4.8 ± 0.7, respectively. The mean post sessions domains of sexual desire scores of groups A, B and C were 3.6 ± 0.5, 4.4 ± 0.7 and 6.6 ± 0.6, respectively. The mean baseline domains of intercourse satisfaction scores of groups A, B and C were 1.9 ± 0.5, 2.4 ± 0.6 and 4.1 ± 0.6, respectively. The mean post sessions domains of intercourse satisfaction scores of groups A, B and C were 2.6 ± 0.5, 3.6 ± 0.5 and 5.5 ± 0.6, respectively. The baseline domains of overall satisfaction scores of groups A, B and C were 1.1 ± 0.3, 1.1 ± 0.3 and 2.4 ± 0.7, respectively. The mean post sessions domains of overall satisfaction scores of groups A, B and C were 2 ± 0.7, 2.7 ± 0.7 and 3.8 ± 0.7, respectively.
conclusionsAll patients showed significant improvement regarding domains of the IIEF-15 especially psychogenic cases following the sessions of FMS. Future studies should demonstrate the impact of these sessions on the response of poor responders to phosphodiesterase inhibitors and intracorporeal injections.
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.