Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 9, 2026
Author Spotlight: Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy in Achilles Tendinopathy Treatment
Published on: August 2, 2024
A critical analysis of the methodological limitations in trials of low-intensity shockwave therapy for erectile
Carolyn A Salter1, Hisanori Taniguchi2, Daniel J Kim3
1Department of Urology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, 20889 United States.
Introduction:
Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LiSWT) is a novel treatment option for patients with erectile dysfunction (ED). To date, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies have been published.
Objectives:
To critically evaluate the methodology and limitations of the published studies on LiSWT for ED.
Methods:
A literature search was performed. We excluded studies that compared and/or combined LiSWT to other therapies. In the context of multiple studies from the same center with identical populations and study design, we selected the studies with the largest patient population and/or longest follow-up. Attention was focused on patient demographics, device parameters, treatment protocols, endpoints, and follow-up schedules.
Results:
45 studies (25 cohort, 20 RCTs) using 9 different LiSWT devices were analyzed. Most studies excluded men with severe ED: 6 included men with pelvic surgery and/or radiation and 22 studies included phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor non-responders. The population size for the cohort studies had mean 61.12 patients (SD 80.34), median 40.0 (IQR 27-54). In the RCTs, the mean per arm was 38.13 patients (SD 19.25), median 35 (IQR 23-42.5). Patients received between 3000 and 90 000 total shocks during the treatment courses, with 1-5 sessions per week and 2-10 application sites included. The most common endpoint was change in the International Index of Erectile Function. Only 17 trials evaluated objective endpoints, such as penile duplex Doppler ultrasound. Study follow-up duration ranged between 1 and 36 months with a median of 6 months.
Conclusion:
The methodology applied to the published LiSWT studies is remarkably heterogeneous, with a 30-fold difference in shock number and a 5-fold difference in weekly session number and number of application sites. These data emphasize the current inability to compare results across studies using nine different devices and disparate treatment protocols.
