Misuse of ultrasound for palpable undescended testis by primary care providers: A prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although previous evidence has shown that ultrasound is unreliable to diagnose undescended testis, many primary care providers (PCP) continue to misuse it. We assessed the performance of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool for palpable undescended testis, as well as the diagnostic agreement between PCP and pediatric urologists. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational cohort study between 2011 and 2013 for consecutive boys referred with a diagnosis of undescended testis to our tertiary pediatric hospital. Patients referred without an ultrasound and those with non-palpable testes were excluded. Data on referring diagnosis, pediatric urology examination and ultrasound reports were analyzed. RESULTS: Our study consisted of 339 boys. Of these, patients without an ultrasound (n = 132) and those with non-palpable testes (n = 38) were excluded. In the end, there were 169 pateints in this study. Ultrasound was performed in 50% of referred boys showing 256 undescended testis. The mean age at time of referral was 45 months. When ultrasound was compared to physical examination by the pediatric urologist, agreement was only 34%. The performance of ultrasound for palpable undescended testis was: sensitivity = 100%; specificity = 16%; positive predictive value = 34%; negative predictive value = 100%; positive likelihood ratio = 1.2; and negative likelihood ratio = 0. Diagnosis of undescended testis by PCP was confirmed by physical examination in 30% of cases, with 70% re-diagnosed with normal or retractile testes. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound performed poorly to assess for palpable undescended testis in boys and should not be used. Although the study has important limitations, there is an increasing need for education and evidence-based guidelines for PCP in the management of undescended testis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".