ArticleBJU international2025
EndoSheath use in flexible cystoscopy: a prospective evaluation of >1000 cases.
Article in BJU international, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate patient tolerability and safety (using urinary tract infection (UTI) as a proxy measure) following EndoSheath-assisted flexible cystoscopy (eFC). EndoSheaths are single-use, disposable sheaths used in FC. They reduce cystoscope turnaround times as complicated, time-consuming and costly sterilisation is no longer necessary. This reduces patient waiting times as cystoscope idle time, the most common rate limiting step, is reduced. PATIENTS AND
methodsAll adult patients undergoing eFC over a 26-month period at a single institution were evaluated prospectively. Post-eFC, participants rated discomfort on a visual analogue scale (discomfort 1 = none, 2-4 = mild, 5-7 = moderate, 8-10 = severe). The diagnosis of UTI was broad and based on any one of patient self-report, positive urine culture or antibiotic prescription within 30 days of eFC. Data were analysed using chi-squared testing (P < 0.05, two-tailed).
resultsOf the 1091 eFCs analysed, 33.2% and 48.2% of were ranked as causing no or mild discomfort, respectively, with just 3.1% ranked severe. Discomfort was greater in younger participants but similar between sexes. Overall, post-eFC UTI incidence was 13.3%, with rates higher in females (18.1%) than males (11.2%). Participants aged ≥65 years reported a higher UTI rate (15.4%) than those aged <65 years (8.8%). No participants developed urosepsis.
conclusionThis large, prospective, unselected, real-world study reports that eFC is well tolerated. UTI was higher in females than males, and in those aged ≥65 years, in line with other studies using the same broad based diagnostic criteria for UTI. The conclusion is that eFC is both well tolerated and safe.
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.