ED Treatment Claims Audit Dataset: 137 Claims on 65 Sites, Coded Against the AUA Guideline

In September 2026 we read 90 consumer-facing pages about three ED therapies the AUA guideline designates investigational (low-intensity shockwave, platelet-rich plasma, stem cell / exosome therapy) and coded 137 separate claims on whether the page tells the reader that. This is the full per-claim table behind the write-up: Half of ED Treatment Pages Leave Out That the Treatment Is Investigational; it reproduces every figure in it.

49.6%

of 137 claims omitted that the therapy is investigational. Commercial clinics omitted it far more often than publishers; the table by publisher type is below.

What the guideline says about the three therapies

Results by therapy

Results by publisher type

Every coded claim

137 rows, one per claim: the page (domain and path, no link), the publisher type, the therapy discussed and the code assigned.

How we built this

Pages were found with the search queries listed in the write-up, retrieved once, and read in full. For each therapy a page discussed, we recorded whether the body text near that discussion says it is investigational, experimental, unproven or not FDA-approved (Conveys), presents it as effective or established without that (Omits), or mentions it with no efficacy claim either way (Neutral). Footer disclaimers do not count. Pages are listed by domain and path so the coding can be checked; we chose not to single out individual sites in the article.

What this cannot tell you

It is one sample, one month, one reader applying a written rule. It measures whether a page says the words, not whether the treatment works (the guideline and the Cochrane review cover that). Run it yourself and, if you get a materially different answer, tell us and we will publish the correction.