SynthesisInternational journal of impotence research2026
Electrical stimulation for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in International journal of impotence research, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent studies have explored peripheral electrical stimulation (pES) as a potential treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the efficacy of pES in ED patients. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2025. Studies comparing pES to sham procedures, standard therapies, or no treatment were included. Eligible studies assessed objective or subjective erectile function outcomes, primarily using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Only three RCTs (n = 82) met inclusion criteria. pES was associated with a significant mean increase in IIEF-5 scores versus controls, with a pooled mean difference of 5.04 points (95% CI, 4.04-6.04). However, heterogeneity was high (I² = 86%, p < 0.001) and a significant difference in terms of pES protocols was noted. No adverse effects were reported. Hypothetical mechanisms of pES in ED have been discussed. pES shows potential as a novel, non-invasive ED treatment targeting multiple physiological pathways. The low certainty of evidence, limited number of RCTs, and study heterogeneity highlight the need for further research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41057588What 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.