Álvaro Navas Mosqueda, Giuseppe Maiolino, Gracia María Gallego Sendarrubias, Víctor Jiménez Díaz-Benito, Eduardo Cimadevilla Fernández-Pola, Cristina Ojedo Martín, Marina Gómez De Quero Córdoba, Eldiberto Manuel Fernández Fernández, Enrique Lledó García, Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca, Esaú Fernández-Pascual
{"title":"电刺激治疗勃起功能障碍:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Álvaro Navas Mosqueda, Giuseppe Maiolino, Gracia María Gallego Sendarrubias, Víctor Jiménez Díaz-Benito, Eduardo Cimadevilla Fernández-Pola, Cristina Ojedo Martín, Marina Gómez De Quero Córdoba, Eldiberto Manuel Fernández Fernández, Enrique Lledó García, Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca, Esaú Fernández-Pascual","doi":"10.1038/s41443-025-01180-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent studies have explored peripheral electrical stimulation (pES) as a potential treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the efficacy of pES in ED patients. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2025. Studies comparing pES to sham procedures, standard therapies, or no treatment were included. Eligible studies assessed objective or subjective erectile function outcomes, primarily using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Only three RCTs (n = 82) met inclusion criteria. pES was associated with a significant mean increase in IIEF-5 scores versus controls, with a pooled mean difference of 5.04 points (95% CI, 4.04-6.04). However, heterogeneity was high (I² = 86%, p < 0.001) and a significant difference in terms of pES protocols was noted. No adverse effects were reported. Hypothetical mechanisms of pES in ED have been discussed. pES shows potential as a novel, non-invasive ED treatment targeting multiple physiological pathways. The low certainty of evidence, limited number of RCTs, and study heterogeneity highlight the need for further research.</p>","PeriodicalId":14068,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Impotence Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electrical stimulation for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.\",\"authors\":\"Álvaro Navas Mosqueda, Giuseppe Maiolino, Gracia María Gallego Sendarrubias, Víctor Jiménez Díaz-Benito, Eduardo Cimadevilla Fernández-Pola, Cristina Ojedo Martín, Marina Gómez De Quero Córdoba, Eldiberto Manuel Fernández Fernández, Enrique Lledó García, Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca, Esaú Fernández-Pascual\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41443-025-01180-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent studies have explored peripheral electrical stimulation (pES) as a potential treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the efficacy of pES in ED patients. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2025. Studies comparing pES to sham procedures, standard therapies, or no treatment were included. Eligible studies assessed objective or subjective erectile function outcomes, primarily using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Only three RCTs (n = 82) met inclusion criteria. pES was associated with a significant mean increase in IIEF-5 scores versus controls, with a pooled mean difference of 5.04 points (95% CI, 4.04-6.04). However, heterogeneity was high (I² = 86%, p < 0.001) and a significant difference in terms of pES protocols was noted. No adverse effects were reported. Hypothetical mechanisms of pES in ED have been discussed. pES shows potential as a novel, non-invasive ED treatment targeting multiple physiological pathways. The low certainty of evidence, limited number of RCTs, and study heterogeneity highlight the need for further research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Impotence Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Impotence Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01180-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Impotence Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01180-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
最近的研究已经探索了外周电刺激(pES)作为勃起功能障碍(ED)的潜在治疗方法。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了pe在ED患者中的疗效。我们对PubMed、Scopus、ScienceDirect和Web of Science进行了系统搜索,以确定2015年至2025年间发表的随机对照试验(rct)。比较pe与假手术、标准治疗或不治疗的研究包括在内。符合条件的研究评估客观或主观勃起功能结果,主要使用国际勃起功能指数(IIEF-5)。采用随机效应模型进行meta分析。只有3个rct (n = 82)符合纳入标准。与对照组相比,pe与IIEF-5评分显著增加相关,合并平均差异为5.04分(95% CI, 4.04-6.04)。然而,异质性很高(I²= 86%,p
Electrical stimulation for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
Recent studies have explored peripheral electrical stimulation (pES) as a potential treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the efficacy of pES in ED patients. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2025. Studies comparing pES to sham procedures, standard therapies, or no treatment were included. Eligible studies assessed objective or subjective erectile function outcomes, primarily using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5). A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Only three RCTs (n = 82) met inclusion criteria. pES was associated with a significant mean increase in IIEF-5 scores versus controls, with a pooled mean difference of 5.04 points (95% CI, 4.04-6.04). However, heterogeneity was high (I² = 86%, p < 0.001) and a significant difference in terms of pES protocols was noted. No adverse effects were reported. Hypothetical mechanisms of pES in ED have been discussed. pES shows potential as a novel, non-invasive ED treatment targeting multiple physiological pathways. The low certainty of evidence, limited number of RCTs, and study heterogeneity highlight the need for further research.
期刊介绍:
International Journal of Impotence Research: The Journal of Sexual Medicine addresses sexual medicine for both genders as an interdisciplinary field. This includes basic science researchers, urologists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, family practitioners, gynecologists, internists, neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, radiologists and other health care clinicians.