Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32214857›Full record

ArticleOpen access emergency medicine : OAEM2020

Assessing the Utility of Ultrasound and Urinalysis for Patients with Possible Epididymo-Orchitis - A Retrospective Study.

Tony Zitek, Omar Ahmed, Chee Lim, Rianda Carodine, Kent Martin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open access emergency medicine : OAEM, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tony ZitekDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4357-6611
Omar AhmedDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Chee LimTouro University Nevada College of Osteopathic Medicine, Henderson, NV, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6544-0371
Rianda CarodineDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Kent MartinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kendall Regional Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas · USRegional Medical Center · USTouro University Nevada · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany experts recommend ordering an ultrasound and a urinalysis on all patients with scrotal pain. While the ultrasound may help diagnose a number of potential causes of scrotal pain, the urinalysis primarily has value in assessing for epididymo-orchitis. This study sought to evaluate the utility of these diagnostic tests for patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with acute scrotal pain and possible epididymo-orchitis. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis was a single-center chart review of patients presenting to the ED with scrotal pain. Trained research assistants reviewed charts to obtain urinalysis and ultrasound results as well as diagnoses and treatments provided. Using the final diagnosis as a gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound and urinalysis were calculated for the diagnosis of epididymo-orchitis. Also, through a prespecified definition of "changed management," we estimated the percentage of cases in which a urinalysis changed management of patients with acute scrotal pain.

resultsWe identified 663 adult and pediatric patients who presented with scrotal pain during 2016. All patients had an ultrasound performed, and 458 (69.1%) had a urinalysis done. The sensitivity of urinalysis for epididymo-orchitis was 58.2% (95% CI 48.9% to 67.1%), and the specificity was 85.1% (95% CI 80.8% to 88.7%). For ultrasound, the sensitivity was 78.8% (95% CI 71.4% to 85.0%) and the specificity was 98.1% (95% CI 96.4% to 99.1%). In 24 of 458 cases (5.2% [95% CI 3.4% to 7.7%]) where a urinalysis was obtained, its results may have changed management of the patient.

conclusionThe diagnosis of patients who present to the ED with scrotal pain is primarily driven by the ultrasound results. While the urinalysis may occasionally provide some benefit in the evaluation of patients with suspected epididymo-orchitis, the reflexive ordering of a urinalysis in patients with scrotal pain may be unnecessary.

Indexed as

antibioticsepididymitisultrasoundurinalysis

Identifiers

PMID32214857
PMCPMC7081061
OpenAlexW3011190501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.