Department of Urology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Department of Urology, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
J Sex Med. 2020 May;17(5):861-869. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.02.025. Epub 2020 Apr 6.
The penile prosthesis has been used for men with erectile dysfunction for nearly 5 decades. Although many articles examine various outcome measures, wide variability exists in the quality of these studies.
We sought to critically evaluate the most referenced literature related to penile prosthesis outcomes over the last 10 years.
A PubMed search of the indexed English literature was performed using the search terms "prospective," "penile prosthesis," and "outcomes", and all relevant publications from 2009 to 2019 were reviewed. In addition, we performed a Google Scholar search for the same interval using the search term "penile prosthesis outcomes" to evaluate manuscripts which have been most commonly cited. The most heavily cited manuscripts were sorted for relevancy using Google's internal algorithm, and then, the articles were reviewed by the authorship team for appropriateness of the subject matter. Articles with less than 10 citations were excluded. We used the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Criteria as part of our evaluation of the published data involving independent research, as opposed to review articles summarizing previously published findings.
We evaluated the most-cited literature of the past decade relevant to penile prosthesis outcomes and reported the major findings in regards to infection, erosion, extrusion, device reliability, and satisfaction (both the patient and partner). The majority of these studies are retrospective in nature.
From our review of the most commonly cited studies, there was no high-level evidence published in this area within the last 10 years. There are multiple barriers to producing these types of studies in the evaluation of penile prosthesis outcomes.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Using the most commonly cited articles allows us to understand the data that are being cited in other new publications. Focusing on the most cited articles on penile prosthesis outcomes in the last 10 years is a limitation as there have been many more studies published in this area.
While many studies have examined penile prosthesis outcomes, most of the heavily cited literature consists of low-level evidence. Higher quality research is necessary to better assess penile prosthesis outcomes. Chouhan JD, Pearlman AM, Kovell RC, et al. A Quality Analysis of the Last Decade's Most Heavily Cited Data Relative to Outcomes After Penile Prosthesis Placement. J Sex Med 2020;17:861-869.
阴茎假体已被用于治疗勃起功能障碍男性近 50 年。尽管有许多文章检查了各种结果测量方法，但这些研究的质量存在很大差异。
我们旨在批判性地评估过去 10 年与阴茎假体结果相关的最具参考价值的文献。
使用“prospective”、“penile prosthesis”和“outcomes”等索引英文文献在 PubMed 上进行搜索，并对 2009 年至 2019 年的所有相关出版物进行了回顾。此外，我们还使用 Google Scholar 在同一时间段内使用“penile prosthesis outcomes”进行搜索，以评估最常被引用的手稿。使用 Google 的内部算法对引用最多的手稿进行相关性排序，然后由作者团队对主题的适当性进行审查。引用少于 10 次的文章被排除在外。我们使用牛津循证医学中心的标准作为我们对独立研究相关的已发表数据的评估的一部分，而不是总结先前发表发现的综述文章。
我们评估了过去十年与阴茎假体结果相关的最受引用文献，并报告了有关感染、侵蚀、脱出、器械可靠性和满意度（患者和伴侣）的主要发现。这些研究大多数是回顾性的。
从我们对最常被引用的研究的回顾中，在过去的 10 年中，该领域没有发表高级别的证据。在评估阴茎假体结果方面，产生这些类型研究存在多种障碍。
使用最常被引用的文章可以帮助我们了解在其他新出版物中被引用的数据。关注过去 10 年阴茎假体结果的最常被引用文章是一个局限性，因为在这个领域已经发表了更多的研究。
尽管有许多研究检查了阴茎假体的结果，但大量被引用的文献主要是低水平的证据。需要更高质量的研究来更好地评估阴茎假体的结果。Chouhan JD、Pearlman AM、Kovell RC 等人。对过去十年最受引用的数据进行质量分析，这些数据与阴茎假体植入后的结果相关。J Sex Med 2020;17:861-869。
