Survey of the quality and origins of websites on penile low-intensity shockwave therapy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to establish the quality of patient-facing websites advertising low-intensity shockwave therapy (LISWT) for erectile dysfunction (ED) and Peyronie's disease (PD) patients in Canada. METHODS: Canadian websites offering LIWST for ED or PD were identified using online web searches. The characteristics of these websites were reviewed, along with examining the presence of HONCode certification, assigning a brief DISCERN score (a tool designed to evaluate health information online) and readability scores. We also examined the LIWST technology advertised, as well as benefits of LIWST cited by the websites. RESULTS: Twenty-five unique websites linked to 46 clinics were identified and reviewed. Twenty-four percent of websites were run by a urologist. Other specialties offering LISWT included general practitioners, anesthesiologists, naturopaths, nurse practitioners, physiotherapists, and registered massage therapists. Twenty-four percent of the websites advertised the use of a focused shockwave generator. Forty percent of the websites had peer-reviewed references. The average brief DISCERN score was 14 (standard deviation 3.4). There was no association between the physician-or non-physician-led websites and the use of peer-reviewed references, readability scores, the number of clinic locations, or higher brief discern scores. CONCLUSIONS: LISWT is readily advertised online for ED and PD patients in Canada; however, only a minority use a focused shockwave generator. There is a wide diversity of practitioners offering LISWT. Websites offering LISWT are generally of poor quality and do not provide adequate information for patients to make educated treatment decisions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".