ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2013
[Modern imaging of kidney tumors].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast enhanced ultrasound of cystic renal lesions, from diagnosis up to treatment.Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation · 2024Review
- Evaluation of renal lesions using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS); a 10-year retrospective European single-centre analysis.European radiology · 2018Article
- [Modern imaging of renal tumors - application in diagnostics and therapy. Characterization, operation planning and therapy monitoring of renal lesions].Der Radiologe · 2016Review
- [Possibilities of sonographic image fusion: Current developments].Der Radiologe · 2015Review
- [Cross-sectional imaging evaluation of renal masses].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Article
- [Sonographic imaging of the prostate].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2014Review
- [Interventional sonography of the liver and kidneys].Der Radiologe · 2013Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
If a renal mass is suspected on clinical examination or ultrasound the finding has to be confirmed by cross-sectional imaging. Methods that are used include multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Also contrast-enhanced ultrasound has been successfully implemented in renal imaging and now plays a major role in the differentiation of benign from malignant renal masses. In expert hands it can be used to show very faint vascularization and subtle enhancement. The MDCT technique benefits from the recently introduced dual energy technology that allows superior characterization of renal masses in a single-phase examination, thereby greatly reducing radiation exposure. For young patients and persons allergic to iodine MRI should be used and it provides excellent soft tissue contrast and visualizes contrast enhancement kinetics in multiphase examinations.This article aims at giving a comprehensive overview of these different imaging modalities, their clinical indications and contraindications, as well as a description of imaging findings of various renal masses.
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.