An overview of the Canadian landscape on the use of restorative therapies for erectile dysfunction and Peyronie’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Restorative therapies (RTs), including low-intensity shockwave therapy (Li-SWT) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), aim to restore natural erectile function. Many clinics offer these therapies for erectile dysfunction (ED) and Peyronie's disease (PD) with direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketing. This study sought to investigate the landscape of RTs within Canadian clinics. METHODS: Online searches were made to identify clinics offering Li-SWT and/or PRP as an RT for treating ED and PD in Canada. Public websites were analyzed, followed by calling clinics for data on cost, treatment protocols, clinic ownership, success rates, and adjunctive therapies. RESULTS: A total of 107 clinics were identified online, with a 68.2% call response rate (n=73). Of the respondents, 56 and 40 clinics provided Li-SWT and PRP therapies, respectively, with 23 clinics offering both. All clinics reported using RTs for ED, with 21 clinics offering Li-SWT and 22 clinics providing PRP for PD. Forty-three clinics provided costs and protocols for Li-SWT, while 33 clinics did so for PRP. The average cost ± standard deviation (CAD) of six sessions of Li-SWT was $2167.24±936.11 and one shot of PRP was $1478.68±591.98. Most (60.3%, n=44) clinics reported physician ownership, with a majority (n=28) being family medicine-trained. Seven clinics did not provide data and 22 were non-physician-owned. Ten clinics provided success rates, with an average of 87.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited data supporting their routine clinical use, many clinics across Canada offer RTs for ED and PD with varying treatment protocols and increased costs. Further research is required to evaluate the efficacy of RT for ED and PD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".