No abstract

No abstract

Patients are becoming increasingly reliant on online platforms for obtaining health information. Previous research has shown that the quality of information available on the internet regarding novel medical therapies is generally poor and frequently misleading. Shock wave therapy represents a novel restorative therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) that has recently gained attention. We hypothesised that online sources regarding shock wave therapy for ED would be fraught with misleading claims and unreliable health information. Our objective was to evaluate the quality and readability of online medical information on shock wave therapy as a treatment for ED. Websites were generated using a Google search of ‘shock wave therapy for erectile dysfunction’ with location filters disabled. Readability was analysed using the Readable software (http://readable.com, Horsham, United Kingdom). Quality was assessed independently by three reviewers using the DISCERN tool. Articles were subdivided into those from private clinic websites and those from universities or news media websites. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Student's t test. Nine articles that resulted from the Google search had mean readability scores as follows: Flesch–Kincaid grade level (10.8), Gunning–Fog Index (13.67), Coleman–Liau Index (12.74), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index (13.33), FORCAST Grade Level (11.33), and Automated Readability Index (11.08). The mean Flesch Reading Ease score was 46.4. The articles had a mean DISCERN score of 3.1, suggesting ‘moderate quality’ content. Articles from universities (n = 2) or news sources (n = 3) had significantly higher DISCERN scores than articles from private medical practices (n = 4). There was no difference in readability scores between the groups. Articles from private clinics are just as readable as those from universities or news media, but they are significantly more biased and misleading. The current online material relating to shock wave therapy for ED may not adequately inform patients in their medical decisions making, thereby necessitating closer collaboration between the sources disseminating information and urologists.

Background Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is a novel therapy rich in growth factors and cytokines used to target the underlying causes of erectile dysfunction (ED). It is not known, however, if the composition of growth factors in PRP varies between men. Aim To evaluate PRP growth factor variability among men with ED. Methods Whole blood was collected from 8 participants with at least a 6-month history of ED. Seven men with Peyronie’s disease and 1 healthy male (without sexual dysfunction) were used as the control group. PRP was extracted from whole blood using the Arthrex Angel system. A Human Growth Factor Antibody Array for 41 proteins was performed using 3 participants and the healthy control. Using all 16 samples, quantitative detection of factors from the array that were decreased by 1.5-fold were validated with western blot. Outcomes From the growth factor array, 2 growth factors—granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor and transforming growth factor-β were identified as having a 1.5-fold decrease between the participants and the control. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) was selected because androgens can upregulate VEGF production. Other than a weak negative correlation between VEGF expression and age, we found no correlation between growth factor expression for granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor or transforming growth factor-β and age, body mass index, or comorbidities. Clinical Translation PRP growth factor concentration appears to vary among men with ED. PRP treatment for ED may need to be personalized for patients, depending on individual growth factor concentration. Strengths and Limitations This study demonstrates the variability in PRP growth factors among men with ED. This is an important finding in the investigation of PRP as a restorative treatment option for men with ED. Our study, however, was limited by a small sample size. Conclusion PRP growth factors vary among men with ED.

No abstract