Observational studyJornal de pediatria
Evaluation of the level of information of pediatricians about the diagnosis and management of cryptorchidism.
Observational study in Jornal de pediatria. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate the level of information of pediatricians about the diagnosis and management of cryptorchidism.
methodA cross-sectional observational study was conducted using a form via the "Google Forms" platform. The study population included pediatricians and pediatric residents associated with the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics. Seven hundred twenty-eight responses were recorded and analyzed using IBM SPSS v21.
results728 valid responses were obtained. Of these answers, only 20.5 % answered that the physical examination was sufficient for the diagnosis, and 79.4 % responded that they requested ultrasound as the best test to aid in diagnosing cryptorchidism. When questioned about the ideal age for referring a patient with cryptorchidism, the survey recorded 56.3 % of the responses defending the correct age as six months old, 30.2 % shortly after birth, and 13.2 % at two years old. Other topics were addressed in the form, such as the frequency of evaluation of testicular position and investigation for DDS, among others. Still, the answers to these questions were compatible with current manuals and guidelines on cryptorchidism.
conclusionIt is evident that the understanding of the professionals consulted about the diagnosis and management of cryptorchidism needs to be updated with the current practices adopted and that pediatricians, in general, must maintain periodic programs on this subject. Therefore, this topic should be part of a continuing education program with pediatric surgery.
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.