Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41795618›Full record

ReviewBJU international2026

Guideline of guidelines: Peyronie's disease.

Francesco Chierigo, Giuseppe Fallara, Marco Tozzi, Andrea Salonia, Matteo Ferro, Hussain M Alnajjar, Asif Muneer, Karl H Pang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Francesco ChierigoDepartment of Urology, Department of Health Science, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7357-0758
Giuseppe FallaraDepartment of Urology, Department of Health Science, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7872-2650
Marco TozziDepartment of Urology, Department of Health Science, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Andrea SaloniaVita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0595-7165
Matteo FerroDepartment of Urology, Department of Health Science, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9250-7858
Hussain M AlnajjarDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Asif MuneerDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Karl H PangDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5703-2319

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Penile IndurationPractice Guidelines as TopicHumansInjections, IntralesionalMalePenile ImplantationPenile Prosthesiserectile dysfunctionintralesional therapynon‐surgical treatmentpenile curvaturepenile prosthesisPeyronie's diseasesexual functionsurgical managementtunical incision and graftingtunical plication

Identifiers

PMID41795618
PMCPMC13071548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.