Noninvasive Treatment Options for Peyronie’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Evidence for noninvasive management of Peyronie's disease contains many options with varying levels of evidence for each. Many first-line treatments recommended by urologists lack strong evidence for their use. AIM: We summarize the noninvasive (oral medications, topical medications, traction, vacuum erection devices, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, intracavernosal injections and electromotive therapy) treatment options for Peyronie's disease and provide the levels of evidence for each. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalKey databases was conducted, current up to April 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: For each treatment modality, we measured level of evidence, change in penile curvature, change in erectile function, the percentage of patients with improved angulation, and pain scores. RESULTS: There is weak evidence to support the use of oral or topical medications. Higher levels of evidence exist for intracavernosal injections and extracorporeal shock wave therapy and may be helpful in certain patient populations. CONCLUSION: The mechanisms behind Peyronie's disease are not fully understood. Penile injections provide the highest quality of evidence for noninvasive treatment. Ory J, MacDonald L, Langille G. Noninvasive Treatment Options for Peyronie's Disease. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:603-614.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".