Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30108336›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2018

Variability in penile duplex ultrasound international practice patterns, technique, and interpretation: an anonymous survey of ISSM members.

Mohit Butaney, Nannan Thirumavalavan, Mark S Hockenberry, E Will Kirby, Alexander W Pastuszak, Larry I Lipshultz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of impotence research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The use of scrotal ultrasound in the evaluation of varicoceles: A survey study of reproductive specialists.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020
    Article
  10. Vasoepididymostomy: an insight into current practice patterns.Translational andrology and urology · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Penile duplex: clinical indications and application.International journal of impotence research · 2019
    Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohit ButaneyScott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. mohitbutaney@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4760-4026
Nannan ThirumavalavanScott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Mark S HockenberryScott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
E Will KirbyScott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Alexander W PastuszakScott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Larry I LipshultzScott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Baylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

Multidisciplinary K12 Urologic Research (KURe) Career Development ProgramK12DK083014 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI LAMB, DOLORES JEAN · 2008 to 2017
$6.0M
K-12: Male Reproductive Health Research (MRHR) Career Development Program at BCMK12HD073917 · NICHD · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI LAMB, DOLORES JEAN · 2012 to 2016
$1.7M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD073917NIDDK NIH HHS K12 DK083014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Penile duplex ultrasound (PDU), combined with pharmacologic stimulation of erection, is the gold standard for the evaluation of multiple penile conditions. A 30-question electronic survey was distributed to members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM). The survey assessed the variability in current PDU practice patterns, technique, and interpretation. Chi-square test was used to determine the association between categorical variables. Approximately 9.5% of all 1996 current ISSM members completed the survey. Almost 80% of members surveyed reported using PDU, with more North American practitioners utilizing PDU than their European counterparts (94% vs 69%, p < 0.01). Approximately 62% of PDU studies were performed by a urologist and more than 76% were interpreted by a urologist. Although almost 90% of practitioners reported using their own protocol, extreme variation in the technique existed among respondents. Over ten different pharmacologic mixtures were used to generate erections, and 17% of respondents did not repeat dosing for insufficient erection. Urologists personally performing PDU were more likely to assess the cavernosal artery flow using recommended techniques with the probe at the proximal penile shaft (73% vs 40%) and at a 60-degree angle or less (68% vs 36%) compared with non-urologists (p < 0.01). Large differences in PDU diagnostic thresholds were apparent. Only 38% of respondents defined arterial insufficiency with a peak systolic velocity < 25 cm/s, while 53% of respondents defined venous occlusive disease with an end diastolic velocity > 5 cm/s. This is the first study to assess the variability in the PDU protocol and practice patterns, and to pinpoint areas of improvement. As in other surveys, recall bias, generalizability, and response rate (9.5%) are inherent limitations to this study. Although most respondents report utilizing a standardized PDU protocol, widespread variation exists among practitioners in terms of both technique and interpretation, limiting accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment of penile conditions.

Indexed as

EuropeHumansMaleNorth AmericaPenile DiseasesPenile ErectionPenisPractice Patterns, Physicians'Societies, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesUltrasonography, Doppler, Duplex

Identifiers

PMID30108336
PMCPMC6173975
OpenAlexW2886039983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.