ReviewCureus2021
A Systematic Review of the Value of a Bladder Scan in Cauda Equina Syndrome Diagnosis.
Review in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cauda equina syndrome: a structured approach for the higher orthopaedic examination.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Review
- An evaluation of individuals who repeatedly present with suspected cauda equina syndrome.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Complications and Risk Factors of Neurogenic Bladder: A Delphi Consensus.European urology open science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is one of the emergency conditions that can lead to devastating permanent functional disabilities, if misdiagnosed. Multiple studies have questioned the reliability of clinical assessment in diagnosing CES, whether some of the features should be considered to be potential red flags. Bladder dysfunction can reflect CE compromise. The post-void residual (PVR) volume bladder scan is useful in CES diagnosis, but to date there has been no single systematic review supporting its use. Furthermore, there is no clear cut-off point to consider PVR statistically significant. The aim of the study is to perform a systematic review of the current evidence behind the use of the PVR bladder scan as a diagnostic tool for CES diagnosis. This was a comprehensive search using Medline, PubMed and Embase. All articles included post-void bladder scans with the mentioned clear cut-off volume as a diagnostic parameter. A total of five study articles from 1955 fit with our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The total number of patients who had a bladder scan was 531. CES was confirmed in 85 cases. Bladder scan diagnosed 70 cases and excluded 327. The best results for both sensitivity and specificity in correlation with the sample of the study were for PVR more than 200 ml. Measuring the post-void urine volume using a bladder scan is an essential tool in the diagnosis of CES. There is a significant correlation between the PVR volume more than 200 ml and higher sensitivity and specificity.
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.