Non-conventional therapies for Peyronie’s disease: what is the evidence for efficacy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a surge in non-conventional therapies for Peyronie's disease (PD). With increasing interest in these novel therapies, we conducted a narrative review to explore the efficacy and safety of these treatments to provide clarity for patients and providers. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to find studies describing non-conventional treatments of PD. These treatments were defined as those within the standard of care, including intralesional therapies and surgical options. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were found. Non-conventional therapies included platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), combination therapy of PRP and HA, extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), stem cell therapy (SCT), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and H-100. Most studies were limited to animal models and reported modest improvements in angulation and erectile function. Complication rates and cost of each treatment were infrequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence supporting non-conventional therapies for PD. As such, they are currently not recommended in clinical guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".