Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15266449›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux.

D M Wheeler, D Vimalachandra, E M Hodson, L P Roy, G H Smith, J C Craig

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Prophylactic antibiotics in vesicoureteric reflux: Evidence-based analysis.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India · 2009
    Article
  7. Vesicoureteral reflux, a benign condition.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2009
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Antimicrobial mechanisms of the urinary tract.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2008
    Review
  13. The current evidence based medical management of vesicoureteral reflux: The Sickkids protocol.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India · 2007
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Evaluating systematic reviews in urology: A practical guide.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India · 2007
    Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D M WheelerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Children's Hospital at Westmead, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, NSW, Australia, 2145.
D Vimalachandra
E M Hodson
L P Roy
G H Smith
J C Craig
Children's Hospital at Westmead · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVesicoureteric reflux (VUR) results in urine passing, in a retrograde manner, up the ureter. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) have been considered to be the main cause of permanent renal parenchymal damage in children with reflux. Therefore management of these children has been directed at preventing infection by antibiotic prophylaxis and/or surgical correction of reflux. However controversy remains as to the optimum strategies for management of children with primary VUR.

objectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of the different treatment options for primary VUR. SEARCH STRATEGY: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included if they compared any treatments of VUR including surgery (open and closed techniques), antibiotic prophylaxis of any duration, non-invasive techniques such as bladder training and any combination of therapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently searched the literature, determined trial eligibility, assessed quality, extracted and entered data. For dichotomous outcomes, results were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data were pooled using the random effects model. MAIN

resultsTen trials involving 964 evaluable children comparing long-term antibiotics and surgical correction of VUR with antibiotics (seven trials), antibiotics with no treatment (one trial) and different materials for endoscopic correction of VUR (two trials) were identified. Risk of UTI by 1-2 and 5 years was not significantly different between surgical and medical groups (by 2 years RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.09; by 5 years RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26). Combined treatment resulted in a 60% reduction in febrile UTI by 5 years (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.70) but no concomitant significant reduction in risk of new or progressive renal damage at 5 years (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29). In one small study no significant differences in risk for UTI or renal damage were found between antibiotic prophylaxis and no treatment. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsIt is uncertain whether the identification and treatment of children with VUR confers clinically important benefit. The additional benefit of surgery over antibiotics alone is small at best. Assuming a UTI rate of 20% for children with VUR on antibiotics for five years, nine reimplantations would be required to prevent one febrile UTI, with no reduction in the number of children developing any UTI or renal damage.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisChildFemaleHumansKidneyMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUrinary Tract InfectionsVesico-Ureteral Reflux

Identifiers

PMID15266449
OpenAlexW4251963440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.