Title |
Short-term efficacy and safety of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy in erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, October 2017
|
DOI | 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0245 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Zi-jun Zou, Liang-you Tang, Zhi-hong Liu, Jia-yu Liang, Ruo-chen Zhang, Yu-jie Wang, Yong-quan Tang, Rui Gao, Yi-ping Lu |
Abstract |
The role of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (LI-ESWT) in erectile dysfunction (ED) is not clearly determined. The purpose of this study is to investigate the short-term efficacy and safety of LI-ESWT for ED patients. Relevant studies were searched in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG and VIP databases. Effective rate in terms of International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function Domain (IIEF-EF) and Erectile Hardness Score (EHS) at about 1month after LI-ESWT was extracted from eligible studies for meta-analysis to calculate risk ratio (RR) of effective treatment in ED patients treated by LI-ESWT compared to those receiving sham-treatment. Overall fifteen studies were included in the review, of which four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were for meta-analysis. Effective treatment was 8.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.88-17.78] times more effective in the LI-ESWT group (n=176) than in the sham-treatment group (n=101) at about 1 month after the intervention in terms of EHS, while it was 2.50 (95% CI: 0.74-8.45) times more in the treatment group (n=121) than in the control group (n=89) in terms of IIEF-EF. Nine-week protocol with energy density of 0.09mJ/mm2 and 1500 pluses seemed to have better therapeutic effect than five-week protocol. No significant adverse event was reported. LI-ESWT, as a noninvasive treatment, has potential short-term therapeutic effect on patients with organic ED irrespective of sensitivity to PDE5is. Owing to the limited number and quality of the studies, more large-scale, well-designed and long-term follow-up time studies are needed to confirm our analysis. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 67% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 8 | 16% |
Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
Other | 8 | 16% |
Unknown | 14 | 28% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 32% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
Other | 3 | 6% |
Unknown | 21 | 42% |