ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2018
Assessment of the renal collecting system using a pocket-sized ultrasound device.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a Handheld Ultrasound vs a Cart-based Model: A Randomized Clinical Trial.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2024Trial
- Accuracy of portable ultrasound machines for obstetric biometry.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2024Observational
- The Performance Characteristics of Handheld, Non-Piezoelectric Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Emergency Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Prospective Comparison of Handheld Ultrasound Devices from Different Manufacturers with Respect to B-Scan Quality and Clinical Significance for Various Abdominal Sonography Questions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Use of Handheld Ultrasound Devices in Emergency Medicine.Current emergency and hospital medicine reports · 2021Review
- Hand-Held Ultrasound Devices Compared with High-End Ultrasound Systems: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
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
purposeTo assess the performance of a pocket-sized ultrasound device (PUD) for evaluating dilatation of the renal collecting system with high-end ultrasound devices (HUDs) as a reference standard.
methodsOne sonographer examined both kidneys using a PUD to evaluate dilatation of the collecting system. The grading of the dilatation ranged from 0 to 4. Immediately after the examination, another sonographer blinded to the previous results performed a formal examination with a HUD.
resultsTwo hundred kidneys in 100 patients were included in the analysis. The agreement of grades between the PUD and HUDs was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.83; P < 0.001). When hydronephrosis was defined as grade 1 or higher, the test characteristics of the PUD were as follows: sensitivity 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79-97%), positive predictive value 73% (95% CI 60-83%), and negative predictive value 96% (95% CI 92-99%). When hydronephrosis was defined as grade 2 or higher, the test characteristics were as follows: sensitivity 88% (95% CI 73-97%), positive predictive value 75% (95% CI 59-87%), and negative predictive value 98% (95% CI 94-99%).
conclusionUltrasound using a PUD is useful for evaluating dilatation of the collecting system, especially for ruling out its presence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29721640What 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.