Regenerative Therapy in Erectile Dysfunction: A Survey on Current Global Practice Trends and GAF Expert Recommendations
Al Hashimi M., Pinggera GM., Mostafa T., Rambhatla A., Hamoda T., Shah R.
Prospective Study, published in World J Mens Health (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Prospective Study
- Journal
- World J Mens Health (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 39028131
- PMCID
- PMC11937352
- DOI
- 10.5534/wjmh.240086
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Purpose This study aimed to examine current global practices in regenerative therapy (RT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) and to establish expert recommendations for its use, addressing the current lack of solid evidence and standardized guidelines. Materials and methods A 39-question survey was developed by senior Global Andrology Forum (GAF) experts to comprehensively cover clinical aspects of RT. This was distributed globally via a secure online Google Form to ED specialists through the GAF website, international professional societies, and social media, the responses were analyzed and presented for frequencies as percentages. Consensus on expert recommendations for RT use was achieved using the Delphi method. Results Out of 479 respondents from 62 countries, a third reported using RT for ED. The most popular treatment was low-intensity shock wave therapy (54.6%), followed by platelet-rich plasma (24.5%) and their combination (14.7%), with stem cell therapy being the least used (3.7%). The primary indication for RT was the refractory or adverse effects of PDE5 inhibitors, with the best effectiveness reported in middle-aged and mild-to-moderate ED patients. Respondents were confident about its overall safety, with a significant number expressing interest in RT's future use, despite pending guidelines support. Conclusions This inaugural global survey reveals a growing use of RT
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.