ArticleKorean journal of pathology2012
Significance of electron dense deposits in patients with minimal change nephrotic syndrome.
Article in Korean journal of pathology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimal change nephritic syndrome (MCNS) is characterized by a lack of obvious abnormalities on light microscopy, but its electron microscopic findings include the negative immunofluorescence findings and the diffuse effacement of the epithelial cell foot processes. Rarely the presence of electron dense deposits (EDDs) has been reported, but its clinical significance remains obscure.
methodsEleven patients with MCNS who had the EDD deposited were enrolled in the current study. We compared the clinical characteristics, laboratory results and response to steroid treatment between the two group: the EDD group (n=11; the male-to-female ratio, 8:3) and the non-EDD group (n=13, 8:5).
resultsThere were no significant differences in most of the laboratory results or response to steroid treatment between the two groups. The frequency of relapses per year was significantly higher in the EDD group (1.1±0.7 times vs. 0.5±0.6 times; p=0.023). These EDDs were found in the mesangium or paramesangium. With no respect to the characteristics of EDDs, our results showed that they did not cause poor treatment outcomes except for the annual frequency of relapse.
conclusionsFurther large-scale studies are warrented to determine the immunologic and prognostic significance of EDDs in patients with MCNS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.