You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 91, Issue 7
  • How and why do we do testicular ultrasounds? A national clinical development group survey of genitourinary medicine clinics

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
How and why do we do testicular ultrasounds? A national clinical development group survey of genitourinary medicine clinics
  1. Matthew Phillips1,
  2. Benjamin Philip Goorney2,
  3. Uday Joshi3,
  4. Philip Kell4
  1. 1 The Orange Rooms, Tameside Sexual Health, Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
  2. 2 Department of Sexual Health, Salford Royal Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
  3. 3 City Healthcare Partnership Hull, Hull, UK
  4. 4 Torbay Sexual Medicine Service, South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Torquay, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Matthew Phillips, The Orange Rooms, Tameside Sexual Health, Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, OL6 7SR, UK; phillima{at}tcd.ie

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2015-052228

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    There is no agreed guidance of when ultrasound scans (USS) should be used to assess testicular pathology in sexual health settings, and the topic is visited infrequently in other guidance.1–4 Individual clinician choice has been the prevailing factor in choosing whether to scan or not. The Clinical Development Group of British Association for Sexual Health and HIV (BASHH) conducted a survey in 2014 of all genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics via regional representatives, asking for factors used in decision making …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MP designed, applied and analysed the work; BPG co-designed, supported iterations of the questionnaire, ensured distribution, analysed the results; PK supported iterations of the questionnaire, ensured distribution, analysed the results; UJ supported iterations of the questionnaire, ensured distribution, analysed the results. All authors had final say in manuscript construction

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Ethical approval Not required: anonymised survey of practising clinicians relating to protocols without need for patient data.