Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35678221›Full record

ReviewANZ journal of surgery2022

Diphallia: literature review and proposed surgical classification system.

Dylan John Kendrick, Roy Mark Kimble

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ANZ journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dylan John KendrickSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1207-3365
Roy Mark KimbleSchool of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiphallia occurs once in 5-6 million births, with no two patients presenting with the same anatomical variation. Here we discuss a review of diphallia case reports, as well as present a new surgical classification system based on the soft tissue composition of the two phalluses, the anatomy of the urethra present within the most normal phallus and the bladder configuration.

methodsEighty-seven diphallia case reports were collected and analysed, excluding those presented in animals and articles that were non-English, with the results compiled to provide an in-depth reference of the specific anatomy found in diphallia patients and the associated abnormalities.

resultsOur proposed classification system was then applied to each patient and the most common configuration base on our classification system presented, along with commonly seen associated anomalies.

conclusionThe reviewed cases represent a subset of the most unique diphallia patients; thus, several cases may be left unreported. Future reports can then be categorized, aiding as a reference, and potentially building on the classification, should the patient not fit into a specific group, leading to an expansion of the classification system.

Indexed as

PenisUrethraAnimalsMaleUrinary Bladderclassificationcongenital anomalydiphalliaduplicate penisurethral duplication

Identifiers

PMID35678221
PMCPMC9539879
OpenAlexW4281721412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.