Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17636679›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux.

E M Hodson, D M Wheeler, D Vimalchandra, G H Smith, J C Craig

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 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. Guidelines for the medical management of pediatric vesicoureteral reflux.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2020
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Urinary infections in children.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2013
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Medical versus surgical management for vesicoureteric reflux: the case for medical management.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2010
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

E M HodsonChildren's Hospital at Westmead, Centre for Kidney Research, Locked Bag 4001, Westmead, NSW, Australia, 2145. Elisah@chw.edu.au
D M Wheeler
D Vimalchandra
G H Smith
J C Craig
Children's Hospital at Westmead · AUSydney Children's Hospital · AUUniversity of Sydney · 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 the main cause of permanent renal parenchymal damage in children with reflux. Management of these children has been directed at preventing infection by antibiotic prophylaxis and/or surgical correction of reflux. Controversy remains as to the optimum strategies.

objectivesTo evaluate the benefits and harms of different treatment options for primary VUR. SEARCH STRATEGY: 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. Date of last search: June 2006 SELECTION CRITERIA: Any treatment of VUR including surgery, antibiotic prophylaxis of any duration, non-invasive techniques and any combination of therapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently searched the literature, determined study 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

resultsEleven studies (1148 children) were identified. Seven compared correction of VUR (by surgery or endoscope) plus antibiotics for 1-24 months with antibiotics alone, two compared antibiotics with no treatment and two compared different materials for endoscopic correction of VUR. Risk of UTI by 2, 5 and 10 years was not significantly different between surgical and medical groups (2 years RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.09; 5 years RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26; 10 years RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.44). Combined treatment resulted in a 50% reduction in febrile UTI by 10 years (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.92) but no concomitant reduction in risk of new or progressive renal damage by 10 years (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.00). In two small studies no significant differences in risk for UTI (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.84) or renal damage (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.36 to 8.07) were found between antibiotic prophylaxis and no treatment. AUTHORS'

conclusionsIt is uncertain whether the 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

PMID17636679
OpenAlexW4248591838

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.