MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182999511 · doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2020.12.004

Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Erectile Dysfunction and Peyronie's Disease: A Systematic Review of Evidence

2021· review· en· W3182999511 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeyronie's diseaseMedicineErectile dysfunctionCochrane LibraryMEDLINEPlatelet-rich plasmaEcchymosisIntensive care medicineDiseaseEvidence-based medicineSystematic reviewInternal medicineSurgeryAlternative medicineMeta-analysisPathologyPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Erectile Dysfunction (ED) and Peyronie's Disease (PD) are debilitating medical conditions affecting patients' quality of life (QoL). Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are one of the various emerging approaches proposed to treat these medical conditions. AIM: To describe the evidence of the potential role of PRP injections in ED and PD. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA statement using the following databases in November 2019: The National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Ovid Medline, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Embase classic. The search was performed using keywords drawn from studies on the use of PRP in ED and PD in clinical and preclinical studies. RESULTS: Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria for review, including 12 studies on the use of PRP in humans and 6 on the use of PRP in rats. Ten studies reported on the efficacy of PRP in ED exclusively, 7 in PD exclusively and one in both conditions. In humans, 6 and 3 studies showed promising results in PD and ED, respectively. No major complications were noted. Unwanted minor side effects were noted by studies reporting on PD, including mild penile bruising, ecchymosis, hematomas as well as transient hypotension noted in 2 out of 90 patients. CONCLUSION: PRP injections for the treatment of ED may be promising, but no recommendation can be made because of scarce evidence. Safety and effectiveness of this therapy in the treatment of ED and PD require further preclinical and clinical studies with standardized protocols to gain an adequate insight into its potential implications. Patients should be offered to be part of such trials to better understand PRP potential. Alkandari MH, Touma N, Carrier S, Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Erectile Dysfunction and Peyronie's Disease: A Systematic Review of Evidence. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:341-352.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.308
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it