Letter to the editor Re: MR urethrography compared with operative findings for the evaluation of urethral strictures.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. Letter to the editor re: Retrograde urethrography, sonouretrography and magnetic resonance urethrography in evaluation of male urethral strictures: should the novel methods become the new standard in radiological diagnosis of urethral stricture disease? Mikolaj et al., IJUN (October 2021).International urology and nephrology · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  MR urethrography versus X-ray urethrography compared with operative findings for the evaluation of urethral strictures.2019

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as