ArticlePediatric radiology2019
Functional magnetic resonance urography in infants: feasibility of a feed-and-sleep technique.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-pharmacological strategies to obtain usable magnetic resonance images in non-sedated infants: Systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of nursing studies · 2020Pooled it
- Reply to the Letter to the Editor: As quiet as a baby… feasibility in protocols for MRI management.European radiology · 2026Article
- Pediatric magnetic resonance urography from patient preparation to post-processing: basics and controversies.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- "Feed-and-wrap" technique versus deep sedation for neonatal magnetic resonance imaging: a retrospective comparative study.European radiology · 2024Article
- Magnetic resonance urography: a practical approach to preparation, protocol and interpretation.Pediatric radiology · 2023Review
- The Emerging Role of MR Urography in Imaging Megaureters in Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunctional magnetic resonance (MR) urography has been well established in the diagnostic workup of congenital anomalies of kidneys and urinary tract, though long acquisition time requires sedation or general anesthesia in infants.
objectiveTo evaluate the success rate of an optimized functional MR urography protocol in infants carried out in natural sleep. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated all functional MR urographies performed under general anesthesia or during natural sleep in infants younger than 1 year between 2010 and 2017 and rated image quality in both cohorts using a 3-point Likert scale. We tested the analyzability of functional sequences using a free available software. We also calculated examination time. Finally, we compared examinations in natural sleep and those with general anesthesia using independent t-test for continuous data and Mann-Whitney U test for categorical data.
resultsFunctional MR urography could be performed successfully during natural sleep in 38 of 42 (90%) infants younger than 10 months. Four examinations were aborted before contrast medium was administrated. In the same period, 19 functional MR urographies were performed successfully under general anesthesia. Although image quality was significantly better in this group (P<0.0001), image quality was at least diagnostic in all finished examinations in natural sleep, and the functional analyzability was given in all completed examinations. There was a significant saving in examination time during natural sleep (P<0.001).
conclusionFunctional MR urography can be successfully performed in natural sleep in infants younger than 10 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30474711What 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.