ReviewAsian journal of urology2021
A systematic review of dedicated models of care for emergency urological patients.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Magnitude and outcome of urologic emergencies: prospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- [Value of standard operating procedures (SOP) in the treatment of urological emergencies].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Article
- Epidemiology and management of urological emergencies in a tertiary care setting in Scandinavia.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- [Position paper of the working group Urological Acute Medicine].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the spectrum of models providing dedicated resources for emergency urological patients (EUPs).
methodsA search of Cochrane, Embase, Medline and grey literature from January 1, 2000 to March 26, 2019 was performed using methods pre-published on PROSPERO. Reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and meta-analysis guidelines. Eligible studies were articles or abstracts published in English describing dedicated models of care for EUPs, which reported at least one secondary outcome. Studies were excluded if they examined pathways dedicated only to single presentations, such as torsion, or outpatient solutions, such as rapid access clinics. The primary outcome was the spectrum of models. Secondary outcomes were time-to-theatre, length of stay, complications and cost.
resultsSeven studies were identified, totalling 487 patients. Six studies were conference abstracts, while one study was of full-text length but published in grey literature. Four distinct models were described. These included consultant urologists allocated solely to the care of EUPs ("Acute Urological Unit") or dedicated registrars or operating theatres ("Hybrid structures"). In some services, EUPs bypassed emergency department assessment and were referred directly to urology ("Urological Assessment Unit") or were managed by other dedicated means. Allocating services to EUPs was associated with reduced time-to-theatre, length of stay and hospital cost, and improved supervision of junior medical staff.
conclusionMultiple dedicated models of care exist for EUPs. Low-level evidence suggests these may improve outcomes for patients, staff and hospitals. Higher quality studies are required to explore patient outcomes and minimum requirements to establish these models.
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.