ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019
Validation study of ultrasound bladder wall thickness measurements.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent developments in diagnostic ultrasound for lower urinary tract function.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Analysis of Clinicopathological Factors Associated with Radiation-Induced Cystitis in Patients with Cervical Cancer.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Evaluation of non-invasive tests as diagnostic tools in assessment of bladder outlet obstruction severity in men with anterior urethral stricture.Central European journal of urology · 2021Article
- Preliminary study on the application of en bloc resection combined with near-infrared molecular imaging technique in the diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Transurethral en bloc resection with monopolar current for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer based on TNM system.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim was to validate ultrasound bladder wall thickness measurements. We scanned at three frequencies (5 MHz, 7 MHz and 9 MHz), using two techniques described in clinical practice and compared them with direct micrometre calliper measurements.
methodsBladder dome cadaver specimens were dissected from male and female cadavers. The direct micrometre calliper measurement under direct vision was used as the gold standard. We imaged using a Voluson E8 ultrasound scanner at three frequencies, using three probes: AB27D (2-7 MHz), RAB25D (2-5 MHz) and RIC50D (5-9 MHz). The specimens were scanned on two different occasions for intra-observer variability. A second operator, measured the samples again independently for the interobserver agreement. The specimens were gently placed onto a sheathed and gelled probe to avoid deformation. The method of scanning was the same for all the specimens, probes and operators.
resultsTwenty-five bladder dome specimens were assessed. The correlation of the ultrasound measurement to the direct measurement improved at higher ultrasound frequencies. Measuring from the inside of the serosal hyperechogenicity also increased the accuracy correlation with the direct measurement for all the frequencies tested.
conclusionsThis is the first study validating BWT ultrasound measurements against cadaveric bladder wall calliper measurements. Technology and technique affect accuracy, which is important in clinical practice. The use of 5-MHz probes is not recommended. The most accurate measurement was obtained using high-frequency ultrasound, where the measurement did not include the serosal brightness. These data suggest that high-frequency ultrasound should be used to assess BWT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30488269What 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.