ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Qualitative and quantitative spermatic cord abnormalities at CT predict symptomatic scrotal pathology.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate quantitative and qualitative spermatic cord CT abnormalities and presence of unilateral or bilateral symptomatic scrotal pathology (SSP) at ultrasound.
methodsThis retrospective study included 122 male patients (mean age 47.8 years) undergoing scrotal ultrasound within 24 h of contrast-enhanced CT (n = 85), non-contrast CT (NECT, n = 32) or CT-Urogram (n = 5). CECT quantitative analysis assessed differential cord enhancement using maximum Hounsfield unit measurements. Three fellowship trained body radiologists independently assessed qualitative cord abnormalities for both CECT and NECT. Qualitative and quantitative findings were compared with the presence of SSP. Reader performance, interobserver agreement and reader confidence were assessed for NECT and CECT. Quantitative cutoff points were identified which maximized accuracy, specificity, negative predictive value, and other measures.
resultsSSP was present in 36/122 patients (29.5%). Positive cases were unilateral in 30 (83.3%) and bilateral in 6 (16.6%). At quantitative assessment, 25% differential cord enhancement had the highest diagnostic accuracy (88.9%), with 90.5% positive predictive value, 88.4% negative predictive value, 96.8% specificity, and 70.4% sensitivity. At qualitative evaluation, CECT reader performance was excellent (aggregate AUC = 0.86; P < .001); NECT was poorly discriminatory, although remained significant (aggregate AUC = 0.67; P = .002). Readers had significantly higher confidence levels with CECT (P < .001). Qualitative inter-observer agreement was high for both CECT and NECT (ICC = 0.981 and 0.963, respectively).
conclusionSimple quantitative assessment of differential cord enhancement is highly accurate and specific for SSP at CECT. Qualitative abnormalities at CECT and NECT are also both predictors of SSP, however, CECT significantly out-performs non-contrast exams.
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.