Trial reportInvestigative and clinical urology2025
SHPro
Trial report in Investigative and clinical urology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposepreclinical trial confirmed that MATERIALS AND
methodsSubjects were divided into the treatment and control groups. They underwent four visits, and medication was initiated from the 2nd visit onwards, with a total of 12 weeks of intake. The endpoints were the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), prostate-specific antigen level, testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, maximal urinary flow rate, residual urine volume, and subjective evaluation improvement. Safety tests included clinical pathology tests and checking for adverse reactions.
resultsA total of 39 patients from the treatment group and 45 from the control group were included in the efficacy analysis. After 12 weeks, a significant improvement was seen in IPSS total score (p=0.0219) and incomplete emptying score (p=0.0007). Furthermore, there were statistically significant improvements in the IIEF total score, erectile function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction in the treatment group. The subjective improvement evaluation also showed a significant improvement (p=0.0143). Ten cases of mild adverse events were reported, including gastrointestinal problems, skeletal pain, dermatitis, and others. However, no severe adverse reactions were observed, and it was unlikely that these were related to the test product.
conclusionsAfter taking the trial product (SHPro
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.