ArticleThe British journal of radiology2014
Testicular microlithiasis an ultrasound dilemma: survey of opinions regarding significance and management amongst UK ultrasound practitioners.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo establish whether there is a consensus regarding the significance of testicular microlithiasis and a strategy for managing patients with this condition, amongst ultrasound practitioners in the UK.
methodsAn electronic questionnaire was distributed to 1482 members of the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS), requesting information from ultrasound practitioners involved in scrotal ultrasound about their interpretation of the risk associated with testicular microlithiasis and their departmental or personal recommendations for managing patients with this condition.
resultsResponses were obtained from 221 BMUS members. Analysis demonstrated a wide variation in the significance attributed to the discovery of testicular microlithiasis and the risk of subsequent development of testicular germ cell tumours. There was also great variation in strategies for management of patients with testicular microlithiasis, including the need for surveillance ultrasound, amongst ultrasound practitioners regardless of their job description.
conclusionLack of consensus shown by this study highlights significant differences across the UK in managing patients with testicular microlithiasis and validates the importance of guidance currently being formulated by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: We believe that this is the first survey to be conducted amongst imaging specialists in the UK regarding testicular microlithiasis and demonstrates that there is currently no uniform practice in managing patients with this condition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.