ArticleCureus2025
Healthcare Utilization and Complications Associated With Single-Use Versus Reusable Flexible Cystoscopy in Hospital Outpatient Settings.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Cystoscopy is one of the most commonly performed urologic procedures in the United States, yet comparative outcome data for single-use versus reusable flexible cystoscopes in hospital outpatient settings are limited. This study compared 30‑day healthcare utilization and complications after single-use versus reusable flexible cystoscopy performed in hospital outpatient settings. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database to identify adults who underwent diagnostic cystoscopy in a hospital outpatient setting between January 1, 2022, and August 31, 2024. We compared outcomes of patients who underwent single-use versus reusable flexible cystoscopy. Primary outcomes were 30-day healthcare utilization and complications. Propensity score matching was used to control for demographics, comorbidities, clinical history, and prior healthcare utilization. A predefined subgroup analysis was performed for patients aged 65 years or older. Results Of 62,965 eligible encounters, 1,473 (2.3%) used single-use cystoscopes and 61,492 (97.7%) used reusable cystoscopes. After matching (1:5), 1,473 single-use procedures were compared with 7,365 reusable procedures. Thirty-day healthcare utilization was significantly lower with single-use devices (5.2% vs. 13.0%; hazard ratio (HR)=0.39; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.31, 0.49; p<0.001). The results favored single-use cystoscopes for acute care events (p<0.001), emergency department visits (p=0.03), same-day surgeries (p=0.01), and clinic visits (p<0.001). Complication rates were significantly lower with single-use cystoscopes (1.8% vs. 4.3%; HR=0.40; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.60; p<0.001), as were serious complications (HR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.81; p<0.001). The findings were similar in patients aged ≥65 years. Conclusion In hospital outpatient settings, single-use flexible cystoscopes were associated with substantially lower healthcare utilization and complication rates than reusable devices. These results support considering single-use cystoscopes when planning care pathways in hospital-based outpatient care.
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.