ReviewJournal of ultrasound2025
A pictorial of rare artefacts in scrotal ultrasonography.
Review in Journal of ultrasound, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although easily performed and with optimal clinical results, scrotal ultrasound examinations are not free from technical difficulties. Some artifacts are relatively frequent, their creation mechanisms are well known and are easily recognized; others are uncommon, produce images which can be difficult to recognize, and need modifications of scan planes and examination techniques to be properly understood. The aim of this paper is to describe some rare artifacts and pitfalls in scrotal ultrasound, trying to explain their genesis and how to avoid them. We describe four different artifacts (flow signals not related to blood flow, refraction phenomena causing appearance of testicular pseudo-masses, pseudo-thickening of the tunica vaginalis, testicular anomalous echogenicity from thickening of the scrotal wall) that can cause diagnostic difficulties during scrotal examinations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40859098What 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.