ReviewAsian journal of urology2015
Evaluation of kidney allograft status using novel ultrasonic technologies.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 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.
- Prediction of renal allograft chronic rejection using a model based on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography.Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994) · 2019Trial
- Diagnostic accuracy of MRI and US for identifying acute rejection after allogeneic kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Elastography: a surrogate marker of renal allograft fibrosis - quantification by shear-wave technique.Polish journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Update on imaging-based diagnosis of acute renal allograft rejection.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Review
- Acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography in the evaluation of renal parenchymal stiffness in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early diagnosis of kidney allograft injury contributes to proper decisions regarding treatment strategy and promotes the long-term survival of both the recipients and the allografts. Although biopsy remains the gold standard, non-invasive methods of kidney allograft evaluation are required for clinical practice. Recently, novel ultrasonic technologies have been applied in the evaluation and diagnosis of kidney allograft status, including tissue elasticity quantification using acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). In this review, we discuss current opinions on the application of ARFI and CEUS for evaluating kidney allograft function and their possible influencing factors, advantages and limitations. We also compare these two technologies with other non-invasive diagnostic methods, including nuclear medicine and radiology. While the role of novel non-invasive ultrasonic technologies in the assessment of kidney allografts requires further investigation, the use of such technologies remains highly promising.
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.