<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>10(2)</volume><submitter>Lei Q</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (Li-ESWT) is an effective therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) but is not widely recognized and applied. This prospective nonrandomized study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Li-ESWT.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>After a 4-week washout period of past ED treatment, patients entered one of 2 active treatment groups, either 9-week Li-ESWT or 100 mg on-demand sildenafil. Patients were evaluated in the first- and third-month following initiation of treatment. The Li-ESWT protocol comprised 2 sessions per week for 3 weeks, which were repeated after a 3-week interval. Patients in the drug group took self-administered sildenafil at a dose of 100 mg before intercourse. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of Li-ESWT measured by the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) scores. Other measurements included erection hardness score (EHS) and Self-Esteem And Relationship (SEAR).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 78 participants completed the study (46 in the Li-ESWT group and 32 in the sildenafil group). Overall, 26.9% of the participants (21/78) included were psychogenic. In the third month, the outcome measured by IIEF-5 was 21.52 in the Li-ESWT group and 21.26 in the sildenafil group (P>0.05). Proportion of improvement defined by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria was 52.2% in the Li-ESWT group and 59.4% in the sildenafil group (P>0.05). The EHS and SEAR improvement was similar in the 2 groups (P>0.05 at baseline and third month). Transient and mild adverse events were observed in both groups.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>In our study, a similar treatment efficacy and safety was shown by the application of Li-ESWT as on demand sildenafil.</pubmed_abstract><journal>Translational andrology and urology</journal><pagination>860-868</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC7947449</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Comparison of the efficacy and safety of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus on-demand sildenafil for erectile dysfunction.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC7947449</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Wang D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ji Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yan S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Liu C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lei Q</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Comparison of the efficacy and safety of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy versus on-demand sildenafil for erectile dysfunction.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (Li-ESWT) is an effective therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) but is not widely recognized and applied. This prospective nonrandomized study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Li-ESWT.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>After a 4-week washout period of past ED treatment, patients entered one of 2 active treatment groups, either 9-week Li-ESWT or 100 mg on-demand sildenafil. Patients were evaluated in the first- and third-month following initiation of treatment. The Li-ESWT protocol comprised 2 sessions per week for 3 weeks, which were repeated after a 3-week interval. Patients in the drug group took self-administered sildenafil at a dose of 100 mg before intercourse. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of Li-ESWT measured by the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) scores. Other measurements included erection hardness score (EHS) and Self-Esteem And Relationship (SEAR).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 78 participants completed the study (46 in the Li-ESWT group and 32 in the sildenafil group). Overall, 26.9% of the participants (21/78) included were psychogenic. In the third month, the outcome measured by IIEF-5 was 21.52 in the Li-ESWT group and 21.26 in the sildenafil group (P>0.05). Proportion of improvement defined by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria was 52.2% in the Li-ESWT group and 59.4% in the sildenafil group (P>0.05). The EHS and SEAR improvement was similar in the 2 groups (P>0.05 at baseline and third month). Transient and mild adverse events were observed in both groups.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>In our study, a similar treatment efficacy and safety was shown by the application of Li-ESWT as on demand sildenafil.</description><dates><release>2021-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2021 Feb</publication><modification>2025-04-26T18:28:22.613Z</modification><creation>2025-02-19T01:40:19.131Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC7947449</accession><cross_references><pubmed>33718087</pubmed><doi>10.21037/tau-20-1069</doi></cross_references></HashMap>