Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28138405›Full record

ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2016

Comparison of voiding cystourethrography and urosonography with second-generation contrast agents in simultaneous prospective study.

Maciej Piskunowicz, Dominik Świętoń, Dorota Rybczyńska, Piotr Czarniak, Arkadiusz Szarmach, Mariusz Kaszubowski, Edyta Szurowska

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maciej PiskunowiczDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland; M. Piskunowicz and D. Świętoń contributed equally to this work and are considered co-first authors.
Dominik ŚwiętońDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland; M. Piskunowicz and D. Świętoń contributed equally to this work and are considered co-first authors.
Dorota RybczyńskaDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland.
Piotr CzarniakDepartment of Paediatrics, Nephrology and Hypertension, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland.
Arkadiusz SzarmachDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland.
Mariusz KaszubowskiInstitute of Statistics, Department of Economic Sciences, Faculty of Management and Economics, Gdańsk University of Technology, Poland.
Edyta SzurowskaDepartment of Radiology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland.
Gdańsk Medical University · PLGdańsk University of Technology · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe invasiveness and exposure to radiation in voiding cystourethrography led to the introduction of alternative methods of diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux, including contrast enhanced voiding urosonography. While there is a limited number of studies comparing these methods using new generation ultrasound contrast agents, none of them compared both methods simultaneously. This study is aimed at assessing agreement between contrast enhanced voiding urosonography with second-generation ultrasound contrast agents and voiding cystourethrography.

methodsFrom April 2013 to May 2014, 83 children (37 female and 46 male), mean age 3.5 years, age range from 1 month to 17.5 years, underwent prospective simultaneous assessment by contrast enhanced voiding urosonography and voiding cystourethrography, with a total of 166 uretero-renal units evaluated.

resultsThe sensitivity of voiding cystourethrography and contrast enhanced voiding urosonography were comparable, amounting to 88%, however, neither reached 100% for the entire studied population. The negative predictive value of voiding urosonography and voiding cystourethrography was 97%, and there was no difference between both methods.

conclusionVoiding cystourethrography and contrast enhanced voiding urosonography are comparable methods in diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux, and can be performed alternatively. However, some limitations of contrast enhanced voiding urosonography must be remembered.

Indexed as

SonoVueultrasound contrast agentvesicoureteral refluxvoiding cystourethrographyvoiding urosonography

Identifiers

PMID28138405
PMCPMC5269521
OpenAlexW2740930595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.