ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2023
Comparative study of standard and small transrectal transducers for prostate ultrasonography.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate pain and image quality associated with the use of two different ultrasound transducers.
methodsFifty healthy male participants aged 30 years or older were prospectively enrolled. All ultrasound procedures were performed using a V8 machine (Samsung Medison, Seoul, Korea) equipped with EA2-11 (conventional) and miniER7 (small-caliber) transrectal transducers, operated by a single genitourinary radiologist. To minimize bias, one group of volunteers underwent ultrasonography with the conventional transducer first, followed by the small transducer. For the remaining participants, the examinations were performed in the opposite order. Ultrasonography, including the measurement of total prostate and transitional zone volumes, was conducted in accordance with standard practice. After testing with both probes, participants were asked to rate their pain on a 10-point numerical rating scale (NRS). A radiologist then evaluated the quality of the images acquired with each probe using a 5-point numeric scale and compared the prostate volume measurements obtained by each method.
resultsThe mean NRS scores associated with the conventional and small transducers were 4.7±1.8 and 2.7±1.2, respectively (P<0.05). The mean ultrasound image qualities from the two transducers were statistically similar (4.78 and 4.74, P>0.05). The whole prostate gland volume as measured with the conventional transducer (mean±standard deviation, 24.2±9.1 mL) was greater than the measurement (22.1±8.7 mL) obtained with the small-caliber transducer (P<0.05). However, only two of the 50 whole gland volume measurements differed by more than two standard deviations.
conclusionThe use of a small transrectal probe significantly reduced pain without compromising image quality.
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.