ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Prevalence of radiographic misinterpretation of urethral bulking agents: a retrospective, single-center study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUrethral bulking agents (UBA) are a treatment option for patients with stress urinary incontinence and can contain radiopaque material such that misdiagnosis for pelvic pathology occurs. We aim to characterize radiologic interpretation of UBA in patients who had computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) after UBA.
methodsAll patients who underwent UBA from January 2011 to March 2024 were identified in the electronic medical record (EMR). Charts were reviewed to identify patients who underwent subsequent CTAP. Radiologic interpretations were reviewed to assess for accuracy in identification of the UBA as well as patient communications regarding imaging results.
resultsDuring the study period, 144 patients underwent injection of UBA. Of those, 31 patients had ≥ 1 CTAP for a total of 61 CTAPs. Average duration of UBA to CTAP was 25.7 months. The UBA was accurately identified in only 15 (24.6%) scans. In 31 (50.8%) scans, neither UBA nor any abnormality was noted, and one of the authors confirmed presence of UBA in 30 of the 31 scans. UBA was inaccurately characterized as bladder stones (n = 7), nonspecific calcifications (n = 6), radiodense material (n = 1), and a urethral stone (n = 1) in the remaining 15 (24.6%) scans. Two patients with UBA who were misdiagnosed as bladder stones messaged via the patient portal about the findings with one expressing anxiety regarding the finding.
conclusionsUrethral bulking agents are often inaccurately interpreted on CTAP potentially leading to anxiety and unnecessary intervention. This highlights the importance of raising awareness of UBA among radiologists.
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.