Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30647916›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2019

Managing vesicoureteral reflux in children: making sense of all the data.

Angelena Edwards, Craig A Peters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Urodynamic findings of pediatrics with history of failed anti-vesicoureteral surgery.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Canadian Urological Association guideline for the treatment of bladder dysfunction in children.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Angelena EdwardsChildren's Health System Texas, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2963-0324
Craig A PetersChildren's Health System Texas, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7598-0865

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current management of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) in children is the result of a steady albeit controversial evolution of data and thinking related to the clinical impact of VUR and urinary tract infection (UTI) in children, the value of clinical screening, and the relative impact of testing and interventions for VUR. While controversy continues, there is consensus on the importance of bladder dysfunction on VUR outcomes, the likelihood of VUR resolution, and the fact that not all children with VUR require active treatment. Early efforts to define risk stratification hold the most promise to provide more patient-specific treatment of UTI and VUR in children.

Indexed as

Urinary Tract InfectionsVesico-Ureteral RefluxChildFemaleHumansMaleRecurrenceRisk Factorsantibiotic prophylaxisPediatric Vesicoureteral Refluxrenal scarringUrinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID30647916
PMCPMC6329208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.