ArticleBMC urology2021
Clinical efficacy of retrograde urethrography-assisted urethral catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization.
Article in BMC urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy-guided urethral catheterization in case of failed blind or cystoscopy-assisted urethral catheterization.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral approaches for urethral catheterization after the failure of initial urethral catheterization have been introduced. However, standard procedures regarding what should be done after failed conventional urethral catheterization have been not established. Therefore, we investigated the clinical efficacy of retrograde urethrography (RGU)-assisted urethral catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization.
methodsBetween July 2015 and July 2018, 136 patients who underwent RGU-assisted urethral catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization were included in this retrospective study. Patients' clinical data, such as age, catheterization site, and previous history of urologic operations, were collected and assessed via chart review. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for the failure of this procedure.
resultsOf the 136 patients, 94 (69.1%) experienced successful RGU-assisted urethral catheterization. Having a previous history of urologic operations, such as urethrotomy and transurethral prostatectomy, was identified as an independent predictive factor for the failure of RGU-assisted urethral catheterization (odds ratio = 9.453, 95% confidence interval = 2.703-33.063, p < 0.001).
conclusionsRGU-assisted urethral catheterization can be one of the modalities for providing successful catheterization after failed conventional urethral catheterization. We believe that RGU-assisted urethral catheterization can be an effective procedure if patients have no previous history of urologic operations, such as urethrotomy and transurethral prostatectomy. Trial registration Soonchunhyang university institutional review board approval (No. 2018-08-021).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.