ArticlePediatric radiology2015
Evaluation of pediatric VCUG at an academic children's hospital: is the radiographic scout image necessary?
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond reflux: the spectrum of voiding cystourethrogram findings in the pediatric population.Pediatric radiology · 2022Article
- The ABCs of Voiding Cystourethrography.Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2020Review
- Article
- Pre-procedural scout radiographs are unnecessary for routine pediatric fluoroscopic examinations.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
- Radiation exposure contribution of the scout abdomen radiograph in common pediatric fluoroscopic procedures.Pediatric radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is heterogeneity in how pediatric voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) is performed. Some institutions, including our own, obtain a radiographic scout image prior to contrast agent instillation.
objectiveTo demonstrate that the radiographic scout image does not augment VCUG interpretation or contribute management-changing information but nonetheless carries a non-negligible effective dose. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe evaluated 181 children who underwent VCUG in 2012, with an age breakdown of less than 1 year (56 children), 1-5 years (66 children), 6-10 years (43 children) and 11-18 years (16 children), with a mean age of 4.0 years. We investigated patient demographics, clinical indication for the examination, scout image findings and estimated effective radiation dose, as well as overall exam findings and impression.
resultsNo clinically significant or management-changing findings were present on scout images, and no radiopaque urinary tract calculi or concerning incidental finding was identified. Scout image estimated effective radiation dose averaged 0.09 mSv in children younger than 1 y, 0.09 mSv in children age 1-5, 0.13 mSv in children age 6-10 and 0.18 mSv in children age 11-18. Total fluoroscopy time per examination averaged 36.7 s (range 34.8-39.6 s for all age group averages). Evaluation of known or suspected vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) and urinary tract infection (UTI) were the most common clinical indications, stated in 40.9% and 37.0% of exams, respectively.
conclusionAlthough the estimated effective dose is low for VCUG radiographic scout images, this step did not augment VCUG interpretation or contribute management-changing information. This step should be omitted or substituted to further reduce dose in pediatric VCUG.
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.