Evidence Hub

Comparative efficacy of combination therapy including regenerative therapies versus monotherapy for erectile dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Quistini A, Fallara G, Tozzi M, Depalma M, Damiano R, Palmieri A, Castiglione F, Salonia A et al.

Andrology, 2026

553 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background and objective: The Current European Association of Urology guidelines do not provide recommendation for combination of regenerative therapies with standard therapies for erectile dysfunction. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of combined regenerative therapy with monotherapy for erectile dysfunction.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024522307). Randomized controlled trials and prospective/retrospective studies comparing combination therapies (low-intensity external shockwave therapy, platelet-rich plasma, stem cell therapy with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, or other treatments) with monotherapy were included. Erectile function was assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function-5 and Erection Hardness Scale. Groups were compared using standardized mean difference. Subgroup analyses based on treatment type, erectile dysfunction cause, and follow-up duration were also conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using risk of bias 2 and Robins-I tools.

Key findings and limitations: Of 1416 articles screened, eight studies involving 553 patients met the inclusion criteria. All studies included phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors and low-intensity external shockwave therapy as regenerative treatment, with no studies on stem cell therapy or platelet-rich plasma. After treatment, no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 553 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free