ArticleCureus2024
Urological Examination Compared to Ultrasonography in Testicular Lump Assessment: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background General practitioners (GPs) often expedite indeterminate scrotal lumps for urological evaluation. While a scrotal examination by a urologist is crucial, ultrasound (US) has become a routine component of clinical assessment regardless of the clinical examination findings and the nature of the symptoms. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of clinical examination compared to scrotal ultrasound, even when the suspicion of cancer was low. Methodology A retrospective review of all fast-track testicular referrals seen in the clinic between January 2018 and January 2021 was conducted. Data on clinical examination findings, ultrasound results, and final diagnoses were analyzed. Patients for whom ultrasound scans were available before clinical examination were excluded from the study to avoid confounding the results. Results A total of 398 male subjects were referred for urological assessment, and 123 cases were excluded based on specified exclusion criteria. Two hundred seventy-five patients were identified who underwent clinical examination by urologists and subsequent ultrasound scans. Among 30 (11%) potentially malignant cases, 18 (60%) were confirmed malignancies. Sixty-eight (24.7%) cases were deemed
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.