ReviewPediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2010
Catheter-free methods for vesicoureteric reflux detection: our experience and a critical appraisal of existing data.
Review in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vesicoureteral refux detection in children: a comparison of the midline-to-orifice distance measurement by ultrasound and voiding urosonography.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2016Article
- Maximizing the sensitivity of the indirect radionuclide cystogram: a retrospective audit.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2013Article
- Safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in children for non-cardiac applications: a review by the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and the International Contrast Ultrasound Society (ICUS).Pediatric radiology · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, the exact role of vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) in general has become controversial, though in some groups of children the knowledge of the existence or non-existence of VUR is still a very important issue. The number of techniques available for the assessment of VUR is increasing, and a new classification taking into account their real characteristics (direct/indirect, catheter-using/catheter-free, radiation-giving/radiation-free) has been proposed. The purpose of the following review is to evaluate the currently available evidence supporting the use of various catheter-free methods for VUR detection. We believe that as the clinical role of VUR has been questioned, it is even more important for the method of its detection to be user-friendly as regards catheterisation, radiation and availability. There is still no evidence supporting the assertion that any of the catheter-free methods of VUR detection might be the optimal one for any child. However, there are some groups of children who would benefit from using them. New studies using new, catheter-free methods of VUR detection or a combination of two or more of the methods described may prove useful in improving sensitivity and providing additional data on this important issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20069314What 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.