ArticlePediatric radiology2020
Accuracy of subjective vesicoureteral reflux timing assessment: supporting new voiding cystourethrogram guidelines.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBladder volume at the onset of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is an important prognostic indicator of spontaneous resolution and the risk of pyelonephritis.
objectiveWe aim to determine whether pediatric urologists and pediatric radiologists can accurately estimate the timing of reflux by examining voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) images without prior knowledge of the instilled contrast volume. MATERIALS AND
methodsTotal bladder volume and the volume at the time of reflux were collected from VCUG reports to determine the volume at the onset of VUR. Thirty-nine patients were sorted into three groups: early-/mid-filling reflux, late-filling and voiding only. Thirty-nine images were shown to three pediatric urologists and two pediatric radiologists in a blinded fashion and they were then asked to estimate VUR timing based on the above categories. A weighted kappa statistic was calculated to assess rater agreement with the gold standard volume-based report of VUR timing.
resultsThe mean patient age at VCUG was 3.1±2.9 months, the median VUR was grade 3, and 20 patients were female. Overall agreement among all five raters was moderate (k=0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.50). Individual agreement between rater and gold standard was slight to moderate with kappa values ranging from 0.13 to 0.43.
conclusionPediatric radiologists and urologists are unable to accurately and reliably characterize VUR timing on fluoroscopic VCUG. These findings support the recently published American Academy of Pediatrics protocol recommending the routine recording of bladder volume at the onset of VUR as a standard component of all VCUGs to assist in a more accurate assessment of the likelihood of resolution and risk of recurrent urinary tract infections.
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.