Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31487299›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Development and evaluation of automated ultrasonographic detection of bladder diameter for estimation of bladder urine volume.

Masaru Matsumoto, Takuya Tsutaoka, Koichi Yabunaka, Mayumi Handa, Mikako Yoshida, Gojiro Nakagami, Hiromi Sanada

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Proof-of-Concept of Microwave-Based Bladder State Detection Using Realistic Pelvic Models.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Masaru MatsumotoDepartment of Imaging Nursing Science, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-0246-395X
Takuya TsutaokaDepartment of Imaging Nursing Science, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Koichi YabunakaDepartment of Imaging Nursing Science, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Mayumi HandaDepartment of Imaging Nursing Science, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Mikako YoshidaDepartment of Imaging Nursing Science, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Gojiro NakagamiGlobal Nursing Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiromi SanadaGlobal Nursing Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bladder urine volume has been estimated using an ellipsoid method based on triaxial measurements of the bladder extrapolated from two-dimensional ultrasound images. This study aimed to automate this process and to determine the accuracy of the automated estimation method for normal and small amounts of urine. A training set of 81 pairs of transverse and longitudinal ultrasound images were collected from healthy volunteers on a tablet-type ultrasound device, and an automatic detection tool was developed using them. The tool was evaluated using paired transverse/longitudinal ultrasound images from 27 other healthy volunteers. After imaging, the participants voided and their urine volume was measured. For determining accuracy, regression coefficients were calculated between estimated bladder volume and urine volume. Further, sensitivity and specificity for 50 and 100 ml bladder volume thresholds were evaluated. Data from 50 procedures were included. The regression coefficient was very similar between the automatic estimation (β = 0.99, R2 = 0.96) and manual estimation (β = 1.05, R2 = 0.97) methods. The sensitivity and specificity of the automatic estimation method were 88.5% and 100.0%, respectively, for 100 ml and were 94.1% and 100.0%, respectively, for 50 ml. The newly-developed automated tool accurately and reliably estimated bladder volume at two different volume thresholds of approximately 50 ml and 100 ml.

Indexed as

UltrasonographyAutomationDeep LearningHumansOrgan SizeReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityUrinary Bladder

Identifiers

PMID31487299
PMCPMC6728037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.