ReviewInternational journal of impotence research2026
The outcomes of non-surgical and surgical penile augmentation procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the growing popularity of penile augmentation procedures, evidence on benefits and risks across techniques remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate changes in penile dimensions and adverse events following penile augmentation procedures. Five databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched from inception to 16 September 2025, following PRISMA and MOOSE reporting standards. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Pooled mean differences are reported with 95% confidence intervals and 95% prediction intervals. Thirty studies comprising 2554 participants were included. Given extreme between-study heterogeneity, inference for girth was based primarily on technique-specific estimates. Penile girth increased after non-autologous injectable fillers by a pooled mean of 1.88 cm (95% CI 1.53-2.23; 95% prediction interval 0.27-3.49; k = 18; I² = 100%) and after autologous surgical grafts by a pooled mean of 1.99 cm (95% CI 0.90-3.08; 95% prediction interval -1.73-5.70; k = 5; I² = 99.2%). An exploratory overall girth estimate pooling all techniques was 1.86 cm (95% CI 1.55-2.17; 95% prediction interval 0.13-3.59; k = 29; I² = 100%). Flaccid penile length increased by a pooled mean of 2.20 cm (95% CI 1.79-2.61; 95% prediction interval 0.93-3.46; k = 7; I² = 81.7%). Erect penile length increased by a pooled mean of 1.36 cm (95% CI 0.18-2.53; 95% prediction interval -2.58-5.30; k = 4; I² = 92.3%). Prediction intervals, not pooled means, should guide expectations for a future patient. Magnitude and safety differ by modality. Prospective studies with standardised measurement, validated patient-reported outcomes, and consistent complication grading are required.
Identifiers
42888184What 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.