ArticleCureus2026
Visibility in Endourologic Workup (VIEW): Comparison of Gas and Saline Cystoscopy.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Macrohaematuria often compromises cystoscopic visibility. We therefore compared gas-based versus saline cystoscopy in a standardized ex vivo macrohematuria model to assess visibility, procedure completion, and observed procedural performance. Methods In a monocentric, two-arm, open-label, randomized crossover pilot, physicians performed cystoscopy on ex vivo porcine bladders modified to mimic human access. Macrohematuria was simulated using a blood-analogue solution. Each bladder was distended with ambient air (180 ml; manual syringes; no intravesical pressure control) or saline (180 ml) in randomized sequence. Three predefined intravesical markings served as visibility targets. The primary endpoint was time to identify all the markings; secondary endpoints included subjective visibility (five-point Likert), perceived visual impairment, ease of use, and iatrogenic trauma (modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS)). Paired and nonparametric tests were prespecified for ordinal outcomes. Results Thirteen physicians (urologists and surgical residents) completed both modalities. All participants identified all targets in both conditions. Visibility ratings favored GASCYS (good/excellent 92.3% vs 38.5%; p=0.0019). Ease-of-use ratings uniformly favored GASCYS (p= 0.0012). Perceived visual impairment was lower with GASCYS (trend; p=0.067). Conclusion Ambient-air cystoscopy was feasible in a standardized ex vivo macrohematuria model and was associated with improved perceived visibility and usability, highlighting its potential for further investigation in clinical studies. Clinical evaluation needs to define effectiveness, safety parameters (including gas type and pressure control), and indications for gas distension in diagnostic cystoscopy during hematuria.
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.