MP47-06 REVIEWING THE CANADIAN LANDSCAPE OF RESTORATIVE THERAPIES FOR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Medical, Hormonal & Non-surgical Therapy I (MP47)1 May 2024MP47-06 REVIEWING THE CANADIAN LANDSCAPE OF RESTORATIVE THERAPIES FOR ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION Jainik Shah, Maximilian Fidel, Dhiraj S. Bal, Connor Roque, Yool Ko, and Premal Patel Jainik ShahJainik Shah , Maximilian FidelMaximilian Fidel , Dhiraj S. BalDhiraj S. Bal , Connor RoqueConnor Roque , Yool KoYool Ko , and Premal PatelPremal Patel View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008880.11564.10.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the inability to achieve or maintain an erection that is sufficient for sexual performance. Restorative therapies (RT(s)) such as shockwave therapy (Li-SWT) and platelet rich plasma (PRP) shots are heralded as options to restore one's natural, spontaneous erection without the need for pharmacologic therapy. However, limited data exists to support their routine clinical use. With direct-to-consumer marketing, numerous clinics across Canada now offer this therapy. We sought to investigate the landscape of RTs for ED across Canada. METHODS: Searches were made online to browse for clinics which were offering Li-SWT and PRP as a RT for ED. Clinics advertising their services online had their public website analysed for preliminary data collection. These clinics were then contacted to capture data on treatment cost, protocol, clinic ownership, training of providers, reported success rates, and administration of adjuvant therapies. Data obtained was then compared against existing literature to assess the accuracy of marketing towards patients. RESULTS: 107 clinics were found offering either Li-SWT or PRP as a restorative therapy, of these, 12 clinics were eliminated without further analysis. To date, data has been obtained for 95 clinics which provided a form of RT. We were able to obtain responses from 68 of these clinics. 53 clinics provided Li-SWT, and 36 clinics provided PRP, 21 clinics provided both forms of treatment. Out of these clinics, 40 clinics provided transparent cost and treatment protocols for Li-SWT, and 30 clinics provided data for PRP. The average cost of 6 sessions of Li-SWT was $2156.67 CAD ($700 - $4000), and for 1 shot of PRP was $1477.61 CAD ($500 - $3000). 61 clinics provided us with data on their ownership, 39 clinics had a physician on site, 26 of these being family medicine trained. 7 clinics did not report any staff credentials, and 17 were of other healthcare modalities, with 5 being listed simply as 'trained providers'. Only 10 clinics provided success rates resulting in an average of 87.3%, with one clinic quoting a success rate of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has so far found that Li-SWT and PRP for RTs are being largely marketed directly-to-consumer with very little urologic intervention prior to treatment throughout Canada, if any at all. The study highlights similar trends found in the USA, taking advantage of the psychosocial burden faced by patients that suffer from ED, tacking on substantial financial costs with marketing practises that are not transparent about the limitations of these RT modalities. Source of Funding: N/A © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e764 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Jainik Shah More articles by this author Maximilian Fidel More articles by this author Dhiraj S. Bal More articles by this author Connor Roque More articles by this author Yool Ko More articles by this author Premal Patel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,190 | 0,082 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».