The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Erectile Function Recovery Rate after Radical Prostatectomy: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Erectile function recovery (EFR) rates after radical prostatectomy (RP) vary greatly based on a number of factors, such as erectile dysfunction (ED) definition, data acquisition means, time-point postsurgery, and population studied. Aim: To conduct a meta-analysis of carefully selected reports from the available literature to define the EFR rate post-RP. Main Outcome Measures: EFR rate after RP. Methods: An EMBASE and MEDLINE search was conducted for the time range 1985–2007. Articles were assessed blindly by strict inclusion criteria: report of EFR data post-RP, study population ≥50 patients, ≥1 year follow-up, nerve-sparing status declared, no presurgery ED, and no other prostate cancer therapy. Meta-analysis was conducted to determine the EFR rate and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous subgroups. Results: A total of 212 relevant studies were identified; only 22 (10%) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (9,965 RPs, EFR data: 4,983 subjects). Mean study population size: 226.5, standard deviation = 384.1 (range: 17–1,834). Overall EFR rate was 58%. Single center series publications (k = 19) reported a higher EFR rate compared with multicenter series publications (k = 3): 60% vs. 33%, RR = 1.82, P = 0.001. Studies reporting ≥18-month follow-up (k = 10) reported higher EFR rate vs. studies with <18-month follow-up (k = 12), 60% vs. 56%, RR = 1.07, P = 0.02. Open RP (k = 16) and laparoscopic RP (k = 4) had similar EFR (57% vs. 58%), while robot-assisted RP resulted in a higher EFR rate (k = 2), 73% compared with these other approaches, P = 0.001. Patients <60 years old had a higher EFR rate vs. patients ≥60 years, 77% vs. 61%, RR = 1.26, P = 0.001. Conclusions: These data indicate that most of the published literature does not meet strict criteria for reporting post-RP EFR. Single and multiple surgeon series have comparable EFR rates, but single center studies have a higher EFR. Younger men have higher EFR and no significant difference in EFR between ORP and LRP is evident.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, despite advances in the effectiveness of PC treatment in eradicating cancer, up to 90% of men treated will experience significant sexual side effects.1,3”
From Preliminary Development of a Mindfulness-Based Group Therapy to Expand Couples’ Sexual Intimacy after Prostate Cancer: A Mixed Methods Approach (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Side effects of PC treatments impact the sexual lives of men and their partners, including erectile dysfunction, climacturia (loss of urine with ejaculation), anorgasmia (inability to reach orgasm), urinary or fecal incontinence, penile shortening, and/or loss of sexual desire.1,3, 4, 5, 6,8,12”
From Preliminary Development of a Mindfulness-Based Group Therapy to Expand Couples’ Sexual Intimacy after Prostate Cancer: A Mixed Methods Approach (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Following PC treatments, sexual functioning and satisfaction sharply decline.1,2,14”
From Preliminary Development of a Mindfulness-Based Group Therapy to Expand Couples’ Sexual Intimacy after Prostate Cancer: A Mixed Methods Approach (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“However, PDE5is have variable effectiveness for PC survivors,1,16”
From Preliminary Development of a Mindfulness-Based Group Therapy to Expand Couples’ Sexual Intimacy after Prostate Cancer: A Mixed Methods Approach (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Jemal, A., Siegel, R. L., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., Murray, T., & Thun, M. J. (2008) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/ca.2007.0010 · Cited by 10,184
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer
Bill‐Axelson, A., Holmberg, L., Ruutu, M. L., Garmo, H., Rider, J. R., Busch, C., Nordling, S., Häggman, M., Andersson, S., BRATELL, S., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1011967 · Cited by 1,899
Impotence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Insight into Etiology and Prevention
Walsh, P. C., & Donker, P. J. (2016) · The Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.10.105 · Cited by 1,467
Impotence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Insight Into Etiology and Prevention
Walsh, P. C., & Donker, P. J. (1982) · The Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)53012-8 · Cited by 1,453
Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate Cancer
Bill-Axelson, A., Holmberg, L., Ruutu, M., Häggman, M., Andersson, S.-O., Bratell, S., Spångberg, A., Busch, C., Nordling, S., Garmo, H., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa043739 · Cited by 1,111
Ficarra, V., Novara, G., Artibani, W., Cestari, A., Antonio Galfano, A., Graefen, M., Guazzoni, G. F., Guillonneau, B. D., Menon, M., Montorsi, F., et al. (2009) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036 · Cited by 1,034
POTENCY, CONTINENCE AND COMPLICATIONS IN 3,477 CONSECUTIVE RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMIES
KUNDU, S. D., Roehl, K. A., Eggener, S. E., ANTENOR, J. O. A. V., Han, M., & Catàlona, W. J. (2004) · The Journal of Urology · doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000145222.94455.73 · Cited by 561
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Porpiglia, F., Morra, I., Chiarissi, M. L., Manfredi, M., Mele, F., Grande, S., Ragni, F., Poggio, M., & Fiori, C. (2012) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.007 · Cited by 251
Randomized Comparison Between Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy
Asimakopoulos, A. D., Fraga, C., Annino, F., Pasqualetti, P., Calado, A. A., & Mugnier, C. (2011) · The Journal of Sexual Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02215.x · Cited by 203
Haahr, M., Jensen, C., Toyserkani, N., Andersen, D. C., Damkier, P., Sørensen, J. A., Lund, L., & Sheikh, S. (2016) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.01.024 · Cited by 180
Salonia, A., Burnett, A. L. “., Graefen, M., Hatzimouratidis, K., Montorsi, F., Mulhall, J. P., & Stief, C. G. (2012) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.04.046 · Cited by 147
Self-citationDownsides of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Limitations and Complications
Murphy, D. G., Bjartell, A. S., Ficarra, V., Graefen, M., Haese, A., Montironi, R., Montorsi, F., Moul, J. W., Novara, G., Sauter, G., et al. (2009) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.021 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Tal, R., Alphs, H. H., Krebs, P., Nelson, C. J., & Mulhall, J. P.
- Affiliations
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mulhall, John P.
- Venue
- The Journal of Sexual Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-09-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2538-2546
- ISSN
- 1743-6095 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-6109
- PMC
- PMC4097184
- OpenAlex
- W2056609863
- Cited by
- 235
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 1.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Journal of Sexual Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748, T32CA009461)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
- Keywords
- erectile function recovery, radical prostatectomy, erectile dysfunction, nerve-sparing surgery, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, open radical prostatectomy, follow-up duration, prostate cancer surgery outcomes, publication bias
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Penile Erection, Postoperative Complications, Prostatectomy, Risk, Risk Factors, Impotence, Vasculogenic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
