ArticleAndrology2025
A comparison of ultrasound-based testis volume with Prader orchidometry and stability of testis size relative to peers from birth to 28 weeks.
Article in Andrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observation or treatment of paediatric varicoceles: revisiting the evidence.Nature reviews. Urology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTestis volume, an indicator of the reproductive development during minipuberty, is commonly measured by Prader orchidometer, despite ultrasound being the gold standard. Data are lacking on the longitudinal relationship between these two measures and on the stability of boys' relative testis size across infancy.
objectivesTo examine the relationship between ultrasound-based and orchidometer-based testis volume measurements and to assess the stability of relative testis size among individual boys in the study. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Infant Feeding and Early Development study is a longitudinal cohort of healthy infants recruited from hospitals in the Philadelphia area during 2010-2013. We measured testis size from birth to 28 weeks in 147 infants using Prader orchidometry (nine study visits) and ultrasound (five study visits). We modeled testis growth, extracted predicted volumes for each boy on each day of the study, and ranked these volumes from smallest to largest.
resultsThe average testis volume trajectory exhibited linear growth over the first 16 weeks followed by slower growth and then a plateau. Prader orchidometry overestimated testis size by almost 3-fold, compared to ultrasound. A range of ultrasound volumes corresponded to each bead size (e.g., bead size of 1 cm DISCUSSION: Consistent with other studies, we found wide variability in testis size during infancy and that Prader orchidometry overestimates testis size. When compared to ultrasound, orchidometry only crudely estimates testis size in this age group. Ultrasound-based volumes generally showed stability in relative testis size across infancy.
conclusionAccurate measurement of testis size is difficult using orchidometry in infants. This highlights the need for ultrasound for accurate measurement, with a one-time measurement likely sufficient to determine relative testis size across the first 6 months of infancy.
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.