Availability of platelet-rich plasma for treatment of erectile dysfunction and associated costs and efficacy: A review of current publications and Canadian data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an increasingly used unconventional treatment option for erectile dysfunction (ED). The validity of PRP as a potential treatment for ED has been proposed in limited human trials. Furthermore, the costs associated with PRP for ED treatment are not readily promoted to patients. The goal of this review was to determine the efficacy and costs of PRP based on currently available literature and Canadian data. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review of available PRP studies and current published data pertaining to cost, availability, and provider clinics globally was conducted using the PubMed database. Physicians offering genital PRP in Canada were identified using internet searches and PRP provider directories. Physician qualifications, clinic locations, and cost information were obtained from provider websites and telephone calls to identified clinics. RESULTS: Availability of PRP injections offered for treating ED is increasing globally. There are currently no peer-reviewed publications to substantiate anecdotal evidence pertaining to the efficacy of PRP as a viable treatment option for ED patients. Our results indicate 19 providers for PRP injections in Canada, costing on average $1777 CAD per injection. No providers were affiliated with academic institutions and providers varied in their area of clinical speciality and training. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, there is currently no research underway investigating the clinical efficacy of PRP for ED treatment despite its broad availability and significant cost. Patients should be informed of the lack of substantiated efficacy and safety data, as the reliability of PRP treatments requires further evaluation.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".