ArticleScientific reports2024
A new nomogram based on ultrasound and clinical features for distinguishing epididymal tuberculosis and nontuberculous epididymitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
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
Using ultrasound findings and clinical characteristics, we constructed and validated a new nomogram for distinguishing epididymal tuberculosis from nontuberculous epididymitis, both of which share similar symptoms. We retrospectively examined data of patients with epididymal tuberculosis and nontuberculous epididymitis hospitalized between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2023. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to derivation and validation cohorts (ratio, 7:3). We drew a nomogram to construct a diagnostic model through multivariate logistic regression and visualize the model. We used concordance index, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis to assess the discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness of the nomogram, respectively. In this study, 136 participants had epididymal tuberculosis and 79 had nontuberculous epididymitis. Five variables-C-reactive protein level, elevated scrotal skin temperature, nodular lesion, chronic infection, and scrotal skin ulceration-were significant and used to construct the nomogram. Concordance indices of the derivation and validation cohorts were 0.95 and 0.96, respectively (95% confidence intervals, 0.91-0.98 and 0.92-1.00, respectively). Decision curve analysis of this nomogram revealed that it helped differentiate epididymal tuberculosis from nontuberculous epididymitis. This nomogram may help clinicians distinguish between epididymal tuberculosis and nontuberculous epididymitis, thereby increasing diagnosis accuracy.
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.