Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31332561›Full record

GuidelineEuropean radiology2020

Ultrasound evaluation of varicoceles: guidelines and recommendations of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group (ESUR-SPIWG) for detection, classification, and grading.

Simon Freeman, Michele Bertolotto, Jonathan Richenberg, Jane Belfield, Vikram Dogra, Dean Y Huang, Francesco Lotti, Karolina Markiet, Olivera Nikolic, Subramaniyan Ramanathan and 11 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Recent Trends in the Management of Varicocele.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Risk factors associated with varicocele: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

21 authors.

Simon FreemanUniversity Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Derriford Hospital, Derriford Road, Crownhill, Plymouth, Devon, PL6 8DH, UK. simonfreeman@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6764-5896
Michele BertolottoDepartment of Radiology, Ospedale di Cattinara, University of Trieste, Strada di Fiume 447, 34149, Trieste, Italy.
Jonathan RichenbergBrighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, BN2 5BE, UK.
Jane BelfieldRoyal Liverpool University Hospital, Prescot street, Liverpool, L7 8XP, UK.
Vikram DograDepartment of Radiology, University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Dean Y HuangKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Francesco LottiAndrology, Female Endocrinology and Gender Incongruence Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 6, I-50139, Florence, Italy.
Karolina MarkietDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Mariana Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-214, Gdansk, Poland.
Olivera NikolicFaculty of Medicine, Center of Radiology, Clinical Center of Vojvodina, University of Novi Sad, Hajduk Veljkova 1-9, Novi Sad, 21000, Serbia.
Subramaniyan RamanathanDepartment of Clinical Imaging, Weill Cornell Medical College, Al-Wakra Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, PO Box 82228, Doha, Qatar.
Parvati RamchandaniPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Laurence RocherDepartment of Adult Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Bicetre University Hospital, 78 avenue du Général Leclerc, 94270, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Mustafa SecilFaculty of Medicine, Department of Radiology, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey.
Paul S SidhuKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Katarzyna SkrobiszDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Mariana Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-214, Gdansk, Poland.
Michal StudniarekDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Mariana Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-214, Gdansk, Poland.
Athina TsiliDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Medical School, University of Ioannina, University Campus, 45110, Ioannina, Greece.
Ahmet Tuncay TurgutDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Pietro PavlicaPrivate Hospital S.M. Maddalena, Occhiobello, Rovigo, Italy.
Lorenzo E DerchiDepartment of Health Sciences (DISSAL), Emergency Radiology, University of Genoa, Policlinico San Martino, Largo R. Benzi, I16122, Genoa, Italy.
members of the ESUR-SPIWG WG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Varicoceles are relatively common particularly in asymptomatic men and are even more prevalent in subfertile men, representing the most common potentially correctable cause of male infertility. Ultrasound (US) is the imaging modality of choice for varicocele evaluation, but there is no widely accepted consensus on examination technique, diagnostic criteria, or classification. In view of this uncertainty, the guideline writing group (WG) of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group (ESUR-SPIWG) undertook a literature review and assessment of the quality of relevant evidence. The group then produced evidence-based recommendations for varicocele US examination, interpretation, and classification by consensus agreement. The results are presented in the form of 15 clinical questions with a brief summary of the relevant evidence and the authorised recommendations from the SPIWG. This paper provides a short summary of the evidence evaluation and the complete recommendations.Key Points• Varicocele is a common clinical problem; it is highly prevalent amongst subfertile men and the most common potentially correctable cause of male infertility. • Ultrasound is the imaging modality of choice for varicocele assessment, but there is no generally agreed consensus on the US examination technique or the criteria that should be used for diagnosis, grading, and classification. • This paper summarises the recommendations of the ESUR-SPIWG for standardising the US assessment of varicoceles. This includes examination technique, image interpretation, classification, and reporting.

Indexed as

ConsensusEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInfertility, MaleMalePenisScrotumSpermatogenesisUltrasonographyVaricoceleInfertility, maleScrotumUltrasonographyUltrasonography, DopplerVaricocele

Identifiers

PMID31332561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.