ReviewInvestigative and clinical urology2017
Critical appraisal of the top-down approach for vesicoureteral reflux.
Review in Investigative and clinical urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for management of urinary tract infection and primary vesicoureteric reflux.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Guideline
- What paediatricians need to know about modern urologic management of vesicoureteral reflux.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Is ultrasonography mandatory in all children at their first febrile urinary tract infection?Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Article
- Sedation Rate Reduction in Paediatric Renal Nuclear Medicine Examinations: Consequences of a Targeted Audit.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Pediatric vesicoureteral reflux: Slow but steady steps.Investigative and clinical urology · 2017Article
- Overlooked Factors Causing Renal Damage in Vesicoureteric Reflux!Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) has been linked to recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs), renal scarring, hypertension, renal insufficiency and end-stage kidney disease. Different imaging strategies have been proposed to approach children presenting with UTI to sort out patients with significant VUR while minimizing patient morbidity, radiation exposure and financial burden. None of these imaging strategies is universally accepted. The"top-down approach" (TDA) aims at restricting the number of voiding cystourethrograms (VCUGs) and its associated morbidity while identifying patients with clinically-significant reflux. In this approach, children presenting with febrile UTIs are acutely investigated with dimercapto-succinic acid (DMSA) renal scans to identify patients with renal parenchymal inflammation. Those with evidence of renal affection are offered VCUG and late DMSA scan to identify VUR and permanent renal scarring, respectively. Although TDA could identify clinically-significant VUR with high sensitivity, it is not without limitations. The approach segregates patients based on the presence of DMSA cortical lesions omitting the morbidity and the economic burden of UTI. Additionally, some of DMSA lesions are attributed to congenital dysplasia and unrelated to UTI. Ionizing radiation exposure, financial costs, limited availability of DMSA scans in the acute setting, variability in interpreting the results and low yield of actionable findings on DMSA scans are some other limitations. In this review, we tried to address the drawbacks of the TDA and reinforce the value of patient-centered approach for VUR.
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.