ReviewArab journal of urology2026
Low-intensity shockwave therapy in men's health: Insights from a systematic review on erectile dysfunction and CP/CPPS in the Middle East.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiSWT) has gained attention as a non-invasive treatment for various men's health conditions, including erectile dysfunction (ED), Peyronie's disease (PD), and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). However, despite its increasing use, robust evidence supporting its effectiveness remains limited. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LiSWT in managing men's health conditions within the Middle East to provide region-tailored clinical recommendations. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed to identify studies that evaluated LiSWT in ED, PD, or CP/CPPS. Studies were included if they employed a prospective design and reported outcomes based on validated questionnaires. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria; 7 RCTs, 2 non-randomized comparative studies, and 5 observational studies. Ten studies focused on ED, while 4 evaluated CP/CPPS. No studies on PD were identified. For ED, LiSWT demonstrated significant improvements in IIEF-5 and EHS scores across most studies, with better outcomes observed in younger patients, those with milder ED, and shorter disease duration. However, some studies found no significant differences between LiSWT and PDE-5 inhibitors or sham treatments, with benefits often diminishing over time. For CP/CPPS, LiSWT showed significant reductions in NIH-CPSI and IPSS scores, with improvements sustained up to 12 months. Study quality ranged from moderate to high, though limitations such as high risk of bias in some RCTs and selection bias in observational studies were noted. While LiSWT represents a promising therapeutic option for ED and CP/CPPS, its application should be costumized to meet the specific needs of individual patients. Future research should focus on developing standardized protocols and conducting large-scale randomized controlled trials to establish its long-term efficacy and optimize clinical use in the Middle East.
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.