ArticleResearch and reports in urology2018
Can lichen sclerosus be diagnosed by preputial appearance or symptoms?
Article in Research and reports in urology, 2018. 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.
- Penile intraepithelial neoplasia, penile cancer precursors and human papillomavirus prevalence in symptomatic preputium: a cross-sectional study of 351 circumcised men in Sweden.BJU international · 2021Article
- Could a careful clinical examination distinguish physiologic phimosis from balanitis xerotica obliterans in children?European journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Lichen Sclerosus: An autoimmunopathogenic and genomic enigma with emerging genetic and immune targets.International journal of biological sciences · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLichen sclerosus (LS), or balanitis xerotica obliterans, is a chronic, inflammatory disease accompanied by cicatrizing skin conditions resulting in pathologic phimosis. LS can be detected clinically by the whitish appearance of the glans or the foreskin, thickened, nonretractable foreskin, dysuria, and spraying. However, diagnosis is confirmed histopathologically. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether LS can be diagnosed on the basis of clinical manifestation and symptoms. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed, which included boys referred to our institutions for phimosis evaluation between May 2001 and December 2016. Pediatric urologists clinically diagnosed LS preoperatively. Boys with voiding problems, recurrent balanoposthitis, or who were unresponsive to topical steroid treatment underwent surgical treatment. Patients who underwent religious circumcisions were not included.
resultsThree-hundred twenty boys diagnosed with phimosis were identified, and 71 (22%) boys underwent surgery. Fifty-eight boys underwent complete or partial circumcision, and 13 boys underwent a dorsal slit or preputioplasty. Thirty foreskin samples were sent for histopathologic examination. Histopathologic evaluation showed evidence of LS in 13 of 30 (43%) circumcised boys, chronic inflammation in ten (33%), no abnormality in four (13%), dysplasia in two (7%), and acute inflammation in one (3%). In the 22 boys who were clinically diagnosed with LS, 13 patients had histopathologic evidence of LS (59%). Visually, eleven cases had whitish foreskins and 21 cases had thickened nonretractable foreskins, of which there were seven (64%) (
conclusionIt is difficult to reliably distinguish whether a patient has histopathological LS by clinical findings alone.
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.