ReviewBJU international2026
Guideline of guidelines: Peyronie's disease.
Review in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on: From fibrosis to restoration: the multimodal 3 Ts protocol for Peyronie's disease.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- YouTube as a Reliable Source of Patient Education for Peyronie's Disease: A Quality Assessment Study.Cureus · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare major Peyronie's disease (PD) guidelines, highlight key similarities and differences among panel recommendations, and identify areas requiring further research.
methodsAn extensive review was conducted to analyse and compare diagnostic and treatment recommendations from publicly available guidelines published by the American Urological Association, European Association of Urology, Canadian Urological Association, and the International Society of Sexual Medicine. Key similarities and differences regarding PD definition, evaluation, non-surgical treatments, and surgical management were systematically compared.
resultsAreas of general consensus across guidelines include the importance of comprehensive history-taking for PD diagnosis and the role of intracavernosal injection as the 'gold standard' for assessing penile deformity prior to invasive intervention. Shared decision-making and thorough patient counselling are universally emphasised. Plication or incision and grafting surgery is generally reserved for patients with preserved erectile function, whereas penile prosthesis implantation is the preferred surgical option for those with erectile dysfunction unresponsive to medical therapy. Non-surgical treatments remain an area of controversy due to limited evidence of efficacy; however, intralesional injections are recognised by all panels as a potential treatment option, especially in the acute phase. Further research into PD pathophysiology and rigorous outcomes studies are needed to inform novel treatments and refine surgical management strategies.
conclusionWhile major urological societies demonstrate substantial consensus on several aspects of PD evaluation and management, key areas of divergence remain, underscoring the need for further research to guide evidence-based care.
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.