SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) for bladder outlet obstruction using urodynamics as reference standard: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of intravesical prostatic protrusion (IPP) for detecting bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), using urodynamic studies as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with PRISMA-DTA guidance. Studies were included if they evaluated IPP in adult men with LUTS attributed to BPH and defined BOO using urodynamic criteria, specifically BOO index > 40. Data were extracted to construct 2 × 2 diagnostic tables. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model, and overall diagnostic performance was assessed using a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. A random-effects model was also used to estimate the association between IPP > 10 mm and BOO.
resultsTen studies including 1253 men met inclusion criteria. Greater IPP was associated with increased odds of urodynamically confirmed BOO, with a pooled odds ratio of 2.67 (95% CI, 1.48-4.79; I² = 94.6%). The 95% prediction interval ranged from 0.32 to 22.49, indicating substantial between-study variability and uncertainty regarding the association in future populations. Diagnostic meta-analysis across study-defined IPP thresholds of approximately 10-12 mm demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 71.0% and specificity of 75.5% for detecting BOO. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.795, consistent with moderate overall diagnostic accuracy.
conclusionsAvailable evidence suggests that IPP is associated with urodynamically confirmed BOO and that a threshold of approximately 10 mm may provide moderate diagnostic accuracy. However, the certainty of these findings is limited by the observational design, relatively small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, and unclear risk of bias in several included studies. IPP may therefore be useful as an adjunct to other clinical findings but should not replace urodynamic evaluation when diagnostic certainty is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42541608What 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.