ArticleCureus2025
Optimizing Rigid Cystoscopy and Biopsy Requests for Red Patches After Flexible Cystoscopy: A Two‑Cycle Quality Improvement Audit.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Flat erythematous "red patches" (RPs) identified during flexible cystoscopy are common and often benign, yet they have historically prompted rigid cystoscopy and biopsy under general anesthesia. This practice can lead to unnecessary procedures with low diagnostic yield, added morbidity, and increased healthcare burden. Objective To evaluate the local practice regarding rigid cystoscopy and biopsy for RPs and to assess the impact of a targeted departmental intervention. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective, two-cycle quality improvement audit at a UK district general hospital. Cycle 1 included all flexible cystoscopies between March and June 2024 and Cycle 2 between November 2024 and February 2025. Data collected included demographics, cystoscopy indication, smoking history, urinary tract infection (UTI) status, biopsy decisions, histology, antibiotic use, and relook outcomes. Following Cycle 1, an intervention was introduced comprising mandatory red-patch image capture, consultant review prior to biopsy listing, and structured teaching on morphology, risk stratification, and benign mimics. Results In Cycle 1, 63 RP cases were identified; 37 (58.7%) underwent biopsy, with three malignancies detected (8.1%). Relook cystoscopy was performed in 26 patients, with resolution in 20 (76.9%); of six persistent cases, three underwent biopsy (one malignancy) and three were observed safely. In Cycle 2, 73 cases were identified; 23 (31.5%) underwent biopsy, with one malignancy (4.3%). Relook was performed in 48 patients, with resolution in 32 (66.7%); of 16 persistent cases, eight underwent biopsy (one malignancy) and eight were managed conservatively. Across both cycles, all malignancies occurred in patients >60 years; three of four had a smoking history, and one coincided with proven UTI. Antibiotic prescribing remained frequent, including in patients without culture-proven infection. Conclusion In our center, a consultant-led, image-supported, risk-stratified pathway appeared to reduce unnecessary rigid cystoscopy and biopsy requests for RPs, with no observed delays in cancer detection during the audit period. Most lesions resolved spontaneously or after UTI treatment, and several persistent but low-risk patches were managed safely without biopsy. However, with only four malignant cases identified, oncological safety cannot be definitively established, and these findings should be regarded as exploratory. This study is further limited by its single-center, retrospective design and small event rate. Future work should prioritize antibiotic stewardship, standardization of relook intervals, and evaluation of urine cytology in high-risk 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.