ArticleSurgery2025
Defining the reliability of bladder scan in patients with obesity with postoperative urinary retention.
Article in Surgery, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative urinary retention warrants catheterization. A bladder scan helps check for postoperative urinary retention before catheterization. There is a paucity of data about its reliability in postoperative obese patients. Our study assesses its reliability in this patient population.
methodsAll patients in the postoperative ward of one hospital who underwent surgery during their current admission were included in our prospective cohort study. Patients were catheterized on the basis of the clinical judgment of the treating physician. The nurses collected bladder scan readings before catheterizing patients. Final analysis excluded patients with nongastrointestinal surgeries, record of fewer than 3 bladder scans readings, and missing urinary catheterized volume. The mean bladder scan readings (minimum = 3) were compared with the catheterized volume using intraclass correlation coefficient analysis.
resultsOf 100 patients, 65 met our selection criteria. Bladder scan reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient. 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.80) in the overall study cohort. A strong linear relationship was noted between bladder scan and catheterized volumes (r = 0.774, P < .001). Excellent reliability was noted in body mass index <30 subgroup (n = 43, intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76, 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.86), whereas the reliability was fair in body mass index ≥30 subgroup (n = 20, intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.55, 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.81). Patients with body mass index ≥30 had a larger median difference between scan and catheterized volumes compared to patients with body mass index <30 (94.2 mL vs 34.8 mL).
conclusionOur study demonstrates the accuracy and reliability of portable ultrasound bladder scans, especially in patients with healthy weight and overweight with postoperative urinary retention. The reliability may be suboptimal in obese patients.
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.