Comment on: Platelet-rich plasma intracavernosal injections for the treatment of primary organic erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary controlled studies

David Romeiro Victor,Bárbara Vieira Lima Aguiar Melão
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00850-5
2024-02-22
International Journal of Impotence Research
Abstract:We congratulate the authors for their exemplary work in conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the application of intracavernous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) [1]. They demonstrated exceptional proficiency through their summarization and insightful discussion of the existing evidence regarding a relatively new therapy, which is still replete with gaps in the literature. Nevertheless, we would like to draw attention to a specific aspect of their meta-analysis that deserves consideration. In their inclusion criteria, the authors specify the incorporation of studies involving patients utilizing PRP either alone or in combination for the treatment of organic ED [1]. Subsequently, in the statistical pooling comparing PRP to placebo, they encompassed Masterson et al.'s randomized controlled trial (RCT) [2]. They appropriately acknowledge that this trial's population continued the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) throughout the study and that this could have been a source of heterogeneity when compared with research in which PRP and placebo were administered alone [1].
urology & nephrology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?