ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
The 50 most-cited primary studies in penile prosthesis surgery: An all-time bibliometric analysis.
Article 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical considerations in prosthetic urology.International journal of impotence research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Penile prosthesis (PP) surgery represents a cornerstone intervention for erectile dysfunction (ED). Despite extensive literature, the most-cited primary studies across the full history of the field have not been comprehensively characterized. We aimed to identify and evaluate the 50 most-cited primary studies in PP surgery, describing citation trends, research themes, and academic contributions using bibliometric methods. The Web of Science Core Collection was searched from database inception through 21 April 2025 using predefined PP-related terms. Study design and level of evidence were independently assessed by two reviewers using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) framework, with disagreements resolved by consensus. The 50 studies (1977-2017) accrued 5652 citations (median, 105; range, 75-215). Most were retrospective observational studies (82.0%) and were assigned Level 4 evidence (56.0%). The Journal of Urology published 28 studies (56.0%). Steven K. Wilson was the most prolific contributor, authoring or co-authoring 10 studies. Non-mutually exclusive themes included surgical outcomes (n = 38), infection (n = 12), and special populations (n = 6). The findings describe the historical development of PP research and highlight the continued need for geographically diverse, prospective, and higher-quality studies.
Identifiers
42675233What 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.