ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2022
Diagnostic performance of MRI and US in suspicion of penile fracture.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconstructing manhood: a unique case report of a penile gunshot wound and its surgical management.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Equivocal penile fracture clarified by MRI.Urology case reports · 2025Article
- A Snap in the Night: A Case Report of Penile Fracture.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Penile trauma management in absence of fracture: Long-term outcomes.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Factors affecting complications and outcomes in penile fractures: a decade of surgical experience from a single center.Sexual medicine · 2025Article
- Imaging findings in suspected penile fracture: alternative diagnoses and surgical correlation.The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Atypical Presentation of a Penile Fracture With Unilateral Corpora Cavernosa and Urethral Injury.Cureus · 2024Article
- Editorial Comment: Diagnostic performance of MRI and US in suspicion of penile fracture.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Penile fracture (PF) is defined as rupture of the tunica albuginea of the corpora cavernosa. While most authors agree that rapid surgical therapy of this rare pathology leads to the best patient outcome, the role of imaging is highly controversial in the published literature. To obtain further evidence concerning the diagnostic accuracies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) in the diagnostic assessment of patients with suspected PF. Methods: We systematically reviewed MRI and US examinations performed in our institution between 2000 and 2021 and correlated imaging reports with either intraoperative finding or final clinical diagnosis. Inclusion criteria were: (I) patient age ≥18 years, (II) examination between 2000 and 2021, (III) information available on patient's history and clinical presentation, and (IV) documented final diagnosis in discharge letter. Next to diagnostic accuracy, we describe typical imaging findings such as penile hematoma, tear of the tunica albuginea including location in terms of side and shaft segment affected, and involvement of corpus spongiosum. Results: Overall, 46 of 88 included patients (54.5%) had a confirmed diagnosis of PF. A total of 69 MRI and 31 US examinations were included. Sensitivity and specificity were 91.9% (95% CI: 78.7-97.2%) and 90.6% (95% CI: 75.8-96.8%) for MRI and 71.4% (95% CI: 45.4-88.3%) and 100.0% (95% CI: 81.6-100.0%) for US, respectively. Conclusions: The results of the present study suggest that MRI is more suitable to confirm PF and identify the site of the associated tunica albuginea tear while US is a good tool for ruling out PF.
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.