ReviewCureus2025
Trends in the Management of Testicular Torsion: A Scoping Review of Delays and Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative Artificial Intelligence as a First Responder in Adolescent Testicular Torsion: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Delayed Presentation of Testicular Torsion in a 72-Year-Old Male Patient Leading to Orchiectomy: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- MRI of the Scrotum and Penis: Current Applications and Clinical Relevance.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Testicular torsion is a time-sensitive urological emergency in which delays in diagnosis and treatment can lead to testicular loss. Despite advances in healthcare delivery, delayed presentation and management remain common worldwide and contribute to significant morbidity. This scoping review aimed to explore trends in presentation, diagnosis, and surgical management of testicular torsion across healthcare settings; identify and categorise the causes of delays; assess the impact of these delays on outcomes; highlight predictive factors influencing salvage; and map gaps in the literature to inform future research and interventions. The review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2025. Eligible studies were original peer-reviewed research articles reporting on delays, predictive factors, or outcomes of testicular torsion. Data were charted on study characteristics, delays, predictive factors, and surgical outcomes. Ten studies were included, representing 1,910 patients with acute scrotal pain, of whom 1,529 had confirmed torsion. Delays in presentation and diagnosis were multifactorial, arising from patient-related, diagnostic, and system-level barriers. Salvage rates varied from 12% to 82%, with an overall salvage rate of 41.5% and orchidectomy rate of 58.5%. Outcomes were closely linked to timing of surgery, with salvage highest within six hours of symptom onset and declining sharply thereafter. Predictive factors included symptom duration, degree of torsion, age, and imaging findings. None of the studies reported long-term functional outcomes. Delays remain the most important determinant of outcome in testicular torsion. Findings are consistent with international guidelines emphasising urgent exploration within six hours. Improved patient education, streamlined referral pathways, and institutional preparedness are essential to reduce preventable testicular loss. Future research should prioritise long-term outcomes and the evaluation of system-level interventions.
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.