ArticleMedicine2017
Evaluation of the accuracy of renal depth estimation formulas in horseshoe kidney.
Article in Medicine, 2017. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimation formulas are usually used to calculate renal depth when glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is measured by the Gates method. Horseshoe kidney (HSK) anatomical structure is different from the normal form of the kidney. The existing formulas are based on the normal form. It is unknown whether the existing formulas are valid in HSK patients. This study was performed to estimate the accuracy of the existing 6 renal depth estimation formulas in HSK.Renal depth and total thickness (T, cm) of the body at the level of the kidneys were measured by CT in 94 HSK patients. Their sex, age, height (H, cm), and weight (W, kg) were recorded. The existing 6 estimation formulas were used to obtain estimated renal depth. Correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman analysis, and paired t test were performed between estimated and the CT measured renal depth.Estimated renal depths were all lower than the CT measured renal depths and there was significant difference between estimated and CT measured renal depth. The CT measured renal depth and estimated renal depth derived from Ma GY formula correlated best (right: r = 0.80, P < .01; left: r = 0.77, P < .01). The renal depth derived from Tonnesen formula was significantly lower than the CT measured renal depth. The agreement between the estimated renal depth derived from Tonnesen formula and the CT measured renal depth was the worst, with the mean difference of (right: -3.11 ± 1.13 cm; left: -2.79 ± 1.07 cm). The agreement between the estimated renal depth derived from Li Q formula and Ma GY formula and the CT measured renal depth was the best, with the mean difference of right: -1.68 ± 1.09 cm; left: -1.32 ± 1.06 cm and right: -1.59 ± 1.01 cm; left: -1.59 ± 0.99 cm, respectively. But the greatest error of the difference between Li Q formula and Ma GY formula estimated depth and the CT measured depth was up to -4.83 cm, and the estimated deviation is unacceptable.All the existing formulas do not fully apply to HSK. To provide reliable and accurate estimates of renal depth, we should develop a new formula to estimate the renal depth in HSK patients.
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.