ArticleArab journal of urology2014
The reliability and reproducibility of ultrasonography for measuring the residual urine volume in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intra- and inter-rater reliability of post-void residual bladder volume with ultrasound.International urogynecology journal · 2020Article
- Can feeling of incomplete bladder emptying reflect significant postvoid residual urine? Is it reliable as a symptom solely?Investigative and clinical urology · 2018Article
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the reliability and reproducibility of abdominal ultrasonography (US) for measuring the postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), and to compare measurements by a radiologist and urologist, in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), as a significant PVR is common in patients with LUTS and an assessment of the PVR could protect patients from unnecessary catheterisation. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a prospective comparative study of 45 men aged ⩾45 years with LUTS attending a urological outpatient clinic from July 2011 to May 2012. A detailed history was taken, with an assessment of LUTS using the Arabic Validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and complete general and local examination. The PVR was measured by US twice by a radiologist and urologist, and then repeated after 1 week. Within ⩽2 min after US a urethral catheter was used to measure the PVR.
resultsThe mean (range) age of the patients was 63.8 (45-88) years and the mean IPSS was 16.18. Reliability testing between the PVR measured by US and the catheterised measure of PVR showed that US was not reliable (Cronbach's α < 0.7). The US measurement was reproducible for both single examiner over two sessions, and with two examiners in one session. The PVR obtained by the urethral catheter was significantly higher than the US measurement (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe measurement of PVR by US is reproducible by either a urologist or radiologist, but it is not reliable, as the urethral catheter estimate gives a significantly higher PVR.
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.