ReviewTherapeutic advances in urology
Peripheral electrical stimulation for premature ejaculation: a systematic review of clinical studies.
Review in Therapeutic advances in urology. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Premature ejaculation (PE) is a common sexual disorder characterized by a lack of voluntary control over ejaculation. Current treatments often fail to produce consistently satisfactory outcomes. Peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) is an emerging neuromodulation technique that applies electrical currents to targeted body areas and has shown promise across various conditions. Objectives: Although the use of PES for PE is relatively underexplored, this study aimed to synthesize existing research to better understand its potential as a treatment option. Design: Systematic review. Data sources and methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using relevant keywords. Studies were included if they investigated PES as a treatment for PE and reported outcomes such as intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) or other clinical measures. Results: Ten studies met the eligibility criteria. Due to the limited number and heterogeneity of studies, a meta-analysis was not feasible, and a narrative synthesis was performed. Stimulation was applied transcutaneously in various ways, including at acupuncture points, the dorsal penile nerve, and the posterior tibial nerve. Protocols varied considerably, though commonly reported parameters included a pulse frequency of 20 Hz and a pulse width of 200 µs, typically administered in 30-min sessions. Some studies lacked detailed descriptions of stimulation settings. Overall, the studies demonstrated a positive trend in favor of PES for prolonging IELT, and no consistent or significant adverse events were reported. Conclusion: The findings suggest that PES may be a promising adjunctive therapy for men with PE by prolonging IELT. Further high-quality research using validated patient-reported outcomes is needed to clarify the impact of PES on perceived ejaculatory control and sexual satisfaction. Trial registration: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024551360).
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.