SynthesisDer Urologe. Ausg. A2012
[Magnetic resonance urography in pediatric urology].
Synthesis in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Oncological diseases and postoperative alterations of the bladder and urinary tract].Der Radiologe · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance urography (MRU) provides high resolution imaging of the urogenital system and the use of paramagnetic contrast agents enables a functional depiction. This review summarizes existing data concerning this diagnostic procedure in pediatric urology. A systematic search and assessment of the literature was performed.A total of 12 studies were reviewed in detail. In mostly small study populations a great heterogeneity concerning methodology, use of comparative examinations and standards of reference was noted. Besides the quality of anatomical imaging, the functional study of renal excretory function and differential renal function was also assessed. Only a few studies performed statistical analyses.The authors' rating of MRU was mostly positive. Due to methodical weaknesses, lack of independent standards of reference and statistical analyses the overall level of evidence was low. Further high quality studies will be necessary to assess the value of MRU for the diagnostic workup in pediatric urology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23160606What 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.