ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
The diagnostic value of non-invasive methods for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms: A meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI-derived bladder wall thickness and acute urinary retention: prediction or contemporaneous association?World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Multi-modal ultrasound for evaluating structure and function of neurogenic bladder in pediatrics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Non-conventional diagnostic tools for lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction in men: a perspective review.World journal of urology · 2025Review
- Recent advances in the diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction in men.Bladder (San Francisco, Calif.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We conducted the first meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic value of non-invasive methods for diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Methods: We searched a range of databases for relevant publications up to June 2022, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Retrieved studies were then reviewed for eligibility and data were extracted. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We then performed a formal meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of various non-invasive methods for diagnosing BOO in men. Results: We identified 51 eligible studies including 7,897 patients for meta-analysis. The majority of the studies had a low overall RoB. Detrusor wall thickness (DWT) (pooled sensitivity (SSY): 71%; specificity (SPY): 88%; diagnostic odds ratio (DOR): 17.15; area under curve (AUC) 0.87) and the penile cuff test (PCT) (pooled SSY: 87%; SPY: 78%; DOR: 23.54; AUC: 0.88) showed high accuracy for diagnosing BOO. Furthermore, data suggested that DWT had the highest pooled SPY (0.89), DOR (32.58), and AUC (0.90), when using 2 mm as the cut-off. Conclusion: Of the non-invasive tests tested, DWT and PCT had the highest levels of diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing BOO in men with LUTS. DWT, with a 2 mm cut-off, had the highest level of accuracy. These two methods represent good options as non-invasive tools for evaluating BOO in males.
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.