The efficacy of platelet rich plasma in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.

Study	Country	Study duration	Experimental group	Control group	Number of patients		Age of patients		Dose of therapy
					Experimental group	Control	Experimental	Control	Experimental	Control
Poulios et al. [16]	Greece	6 Months	PRP	Placebo	30	30	58 (51.5, 62)	59 (53.5, 61)	5 mL PRP each corpus cavernosum (two sessions)	5 mL saline each corpus cavernosum (two sessions)
Ruffo et al. [14]	Italy	6 Months	PRP + Li-ESWT	Li-ESWT	55	58	NA	NA	Li-ESWT (2 weekly sessions) plus PRP intracavernosal injections (once/week)	Li-ESWT alone (2 weekly sessions)
Shaher et al. [15]	Egypt	6 Months	PRP	Placebo	55	54	56 (46,65)	54 (45,64)	3 Injections (3 mL each corpus)	6 mL saline injected intracavernous
Masterson et al. [17]	America	6 Months	PRP	Placebo	28	33	49 (38.5, 55)	46 (42, 56)	Approximately, 2.5 mL PRP was injected into the right and left corpus cavernosum	Approximately 2.5 mL normal saline was injected into the right and left corpus cavernosum

PRP: platelet rich plasma; Li-ESWT: low-energy extracorporeal shockwave therapy

Figure 2. Risk of bias summary and graph, and publication bias assessment.

Figure 3. Forest plots showing changes between PRP and placebo in (3a) MCID at the first month, (3b) MCID at the third month, and (3c) MCID at the sixth month.

Figure 4. Forest plots showing changes between PRP and placebo in (4a) IEFF at the first month, (4b) IEFF at the third month, and (4c) IEFF at the sixth month.