SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2023
Aspiration and sclerotherapy versus hydrocelectomy for treating hydroceles: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Male reproductive surgeries and long-term kidney outcomes: a Mendelian randomization and meta-analysis of UK Biobank and FinnGen.Renal failure · 2026Pooled it
- Minimal-incision hydrocelectomy reduces bleeding, but has it solved recurrence?-a look back at a century of technique.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Tension Hydrocele-How Point-of-care Ultrasound Helps in the Emergency Department: A Case Report.Clinical practice and cases in emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in the diagnosis and management of abdominoscrotal hydrocele: a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the hydrocelectomy versus aspiration and sclerotherapy for treating primary hydrocele.
methodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared aspiration and sclerotherapy with any type of sclerosants versus hydrocelectomy for primary hydrocele. Studies were identified via a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Citation tracking of related articles was performed. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. The primary and secondary outcome measures were compared and analyzed using the Review Manager 5.3.5 software.
resultsFive small RCTs were included in the present study. These 5 RCTs included 335 patients with 342 hydroceles, randomized to aspiration and sclerotherapy (185 patients; 189 hydroceles) and surgery (150 patients; 153 hydroceles). There was no significant difference in clinical cure between sclerotherapy and hydrocelectomy (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.10). Meta-analysis revealed a significant increase in recurrence in the sclerotherapy group compared with the surgical group (RR 9.43, 95% CI 1.82 to 48.77). There were no significant differences between the two groups in assessing fever, infection, and hematoma.
conclusionAspiration and sclerotherapy is an efficient technique with a higher recurrent rate; therefore, we recommend aspiration and sclerotherapy for patients at high risk for surgery or avoiding surgery. In addition, included RCTs had low methodological quality, low sample size, and invalidated instruments for outcome assessment. Therefore, there is a great need for further methodologically rigorous RCTs with the registered protocol.
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.