ArticleRadiological physics and technology2026
Accuracy and feasibility of sitting bladder volume measurement using portable ultrasound device in prostate radiotherapy.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of bladder volume measurement in the sitting position during prostate radiotherapy using a portable ultrasound device, compared with the conventional supine position. Forty patients (mean age 73.1 years; range 59-85) undergoing prostate radiotherapy were prospectively enrolled. Following planning CT (pCT), bladder volumes were measured using ultrasound in the supine position and immediately thereafter in the sitting position to minimize temporal variation. Reference bladder volumes were contoured on pCT images. Measurement error rates, correlations, and agreement (Bland-Altman, Wilcoxon signed-rank test) were evaluated. A predefined ± 15% margin, based on device specifications and clinical standards, defined clinically acceptable accuracy. Evaluated bladder volumes ranged from 99 to 435 mL. Mean differences between ultrasound and pCT volumes were - 25.9 ± 37.2 mL (supine) and - 12.2 ± 32.5 mL (sitting), corresponding to error rates of 14.1% and 9.1%, respectively. Strong correlations with pCT were observed in both positions (r = 0.89-0.92). Although a statistically significant difference was detected between positions (p < 0.01), the mean difference (supine minus sitting) was - 13.7 mL. The mean absolute difference between the two positions was 27.6 mL (median: 23 mL; range: 1-139 mL), and Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated agreement within the predefined margin. Bladder volume measurement in the sitting position demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy for initial volume estimation. While not a perfect substitute for supine measurement due to individual variability, it serves as a practical tool for workflow optimization, such as pretreatment screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42803890What 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.