Short-term efficacy and safety of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy in erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Zou ZJ., Tang LY., Liu ZH., Liang JY., Zhang RC., Wang YJ.
Meta-analysis with a reported sample of 176, published in Int Braz J Urol (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- 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
- Meta-analysis
- Journal
- Int Braz J Urol (2017)
- Reported sample size
- 176
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 28379665
- PMCID
- PMC5678511
- DOI
- 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0245
- Citations
- 26
Abstract (original English)
Aim 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. Materials and methods 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. Results 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
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.