ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Two cost-effective techniques for intrarenal pressure monitoring during flexible ureteroscopy: validation of a handheld pressure meter against a sphygmomanometer in a bench-top model.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveTo validate a simple, inexpensive method for intrarenal pressure monitoring during flexible ureteroscopy by comparing a handheld pressure meter with a sphygmomanometer in a bench-top balloon model.
methodsA balloon was mounted on the distal tip of an 8.4 Fr flexible ureteroscope and connected to a three-way stopcock at the irrigation port. This setup enabled simultaneous pressure recording using a mercury sphygmomanometer (gold standard) and the Wellead handheld pressure meter (Shenzen JCR Medical Technology, China). Thirty paired measurements were obtained across clinically relevant pressure ranges. Agreement was evaluated using paired t-test and Bland–Altman analysis. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Paired t-test showed no significant difference between devices (t = 0.314, p = 0.756). The mean bias (Wellead – sphygmomanometer) was 0.02 mmHg with a standard deviation of 0.35 mmHg. The 95% limits of agreement were narrow (−0.664 to +0.704 mmHg). Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated excellent concordance without proportional bias. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study validates two inexpensive, reproducible methods for intrarenal pressure monitoring via the irrigation port of a flexible ureteroscope: the sphygmomanometer and the Wellead handheld meter. Both demonstrated excellent agreement, offering globally accessible options for laboratory research and potential clinical use.
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.