ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Impact of bladder size and shape on the accuracy of formula method for bladder volume evaluation.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Preemptive Analgesia Using Wrist-Ankle Acupuncture on Postoperative Pain and Urinary Retention After Haemorrhoidectomy: A Randomised, Three-Arm, Clinical Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Trial
- Paediatric urodynamic studies: emerging technologies and new frontiers.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
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
backgroundTo explore the impact of bladder size and shape on the accuracy of the formula method (V = 0.52 × d
methodsData was retrospectively collected from 220 patients without reportable bladder diseases. CT images were imported into 3D Slicer software to measure the bladder volume V
resultsThe bldder volume was 121.0 ± 83.6 mL with the formula method, compared with 128.5 ± 82.6 mL measured by 3D Slicer (P < 0.0001). Patients were divided into three groups based on bladder size, the mean percent deviations between the two methods were 18.8 ± 20.8%, 3.4 ± 12.9% and 4.6 ± 10.6%, respectively. According to the bladder shape, it can be divided into 5 types. For round and triangle shapes, there was no significant statistical difference in the results of the two methods. For bladder shapes with ellipse, rectangle and irregular shape, the volume evaluated by the formula method was statistically lower. Their deviations were 9.7 ± 17.5%, 12.9 ± 9.6% and 14.4 ± 21.2%, respectively.
conclusionThe accuracy of the formula method for estimating bladder volume is affected by bladder size and shape. Overall, the formula method tends to underestimate the bladder volume. The error of small-sized bladders is much greater than that of large-sized bladders. Furthermore, the formula method has high accuracy in measuring bladder volume with round and triangle shapes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39312017What 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.