ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2026
Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and limited quantitative synthesis.
Article in Translational andrology and 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
Background: Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) is a non-invasive therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED), but evidence is geographically concentrated, heterogeneous, and largely patient-reported. Because LIPUS differs biophysically from low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (Li-ESWT), this review evaluated short-term efficacy, safety, and protocol evidence without cross-modality pooling. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 principles, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, the VIP Journal Integration Platform (VIP), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (SinoMed), and references through 8 June 2026. Clinical studies of adult men with ED receiving LIPUS were eligible; Li-ESWT-only and non-human studies were excluded. This systematic review was re-registered in OSF Registries on 2 September 2026 (updated ID: 7b9ed; https://osf.io/7b9ed/) after the original record (former ID: 7s9kF) became inaccessible due to technical link failure, with no core protocol modifications. Literature search was completed on 8 June 2026 before data synthesis; no eligibility criteria, outcomes, or effect estimates were altered post-extraction. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, assessed risk of bias with design-appropriate tools, and rated certainty using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Six Chinese studies involving 659 participants were included. One double-blind sham-controlled randomized trial provided the main efficacy evidence. At 12 weeks, LIPUS improved the five-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score versus sham (mean difference =3.38, 95% confidence interval: 2.60-4.16) and increased clinically meaningful response (risk ratio =3.38, 95% confidence interval: 1.78-6.39; 67.5% Conclusions: Based on current low-certainty evidence, LIPUS remains investigational and cannot be recommended for routine clinical use in ED at this time. International multicenter sham-controlled trials with standardized acoustic reporting, objective hemodynamic endpoints, transparent adverse-event assessment, and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up are needed.
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.