ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2017
Treatment effect of TUSPLV on recurrent varicocele.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to analyze the treatment effect of transumbilical single-port laparoscopic varicocelectomy (TUSPLV) on recurrent varicocele (VC). In order to compare the surgical effects of TUSPLV to traditional retroperitoneal ligation of the internal spermatic vein, 64 patients with recurrent VC were enrolled and divided into the control group (n=30) and the observation group (n=34). Patients in the control group underwent surgery using traditional retroperitoneal ligation of the internal spermatic vein, while those in the observation group underwent surgery using TUSPLV. The results showed that the time of operation and bleeding volume in the observation group were significantly lower. The occurrence and recurrence rates of periprocedural complications were considerably lower in the observation group. Differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). In terms of the pregnancy rate, the difference between the 2 groups had no statistical significance (P>0.05). We concluded that employing TUSPLV to treat recurrent VC was safe and effective.
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.