Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29486011›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Comparison of two cannulation methods for assessment of intracavernosal pressure in a rat model.

Shankun Zhao, Ran Kang, Tuo Deng, Lianmin Luo, Jiamin Wang, Ermao Li, Jintai Luo, Luhao Liu, ShawPong Wan, Zhigang Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shankun ZhaoDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Ran KangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanhua University. Hengyang, Hunan, China.
Tuo DengDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lianmin LuoDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jiamin WangDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Ermao LiDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jintai LuoDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Luhao LiuDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
ShawPong WanDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhigang ZhaoDepartment of Urology & Andrology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3147-8544
First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of University of South China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracavernous pressure (ICP) measurement is a well-established technique for assessing the erectile function, which was performed by cannulating either crus or shaft of the penis. However, there are no studies concerning the experimental performance of the two cannulation sites yet. The aim of this study was to compare the measuring outcomes using two different cannulation sites. To validate the capacity of our study, both normal and the castration-induced erectile dysfunction rat models were conducted. Fifty adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized equally into two groups: an intact group and a castration group. Five rats from each group firstly underwent different stimulation parameters to detect the optimal erectile responses. The residual rats in each group were further assigned into two subgroups (n = 10 per subgroup) according to two different cannulation sites (crus or shaft of the corpus cavernosum). The ICP values were compared between groups after different interventions. The optimal parameters for mean maximum ICP were recorded at 2.5V and a frequency of 15 Hz. The rats under the two different cannulation sites tended to show similar ICP values in both the intact and the castration groups. However, the success rate in monitoring ICP was significantly higher in the groups cannulating into the shaft of the penis compared to the crus (100% vs. 70%; P = 0.02). Our data suggested that the method of cannulation into the penile shaft could serve as a better alternative for the ICP measurement in rats.

Indexed as

AnimalsCatheterizationDisease Models, AnimalErectile DysfunctionMaleOrchiectomyRandom AllocationRatsRats, Sprague-Dawley

Identifiers

PMID29486011
PMCPMC5828359
OpenAlexW2788921498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.