ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Identification and characterization of calyceal diverticula with MR urography (MRU) in children.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and CT features of calyceal diverticula detected using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced liver MR imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Pediatric magnetic resonance urography from patient preparation to post-processing: basics and controversies.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Pediatric renal calyceal diverticular calculi: Diagnostic and management by percutaneous nephrolithotomy "case report".Urology case reports · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the MRU imaging findings of calyceal diverticula in a large cohort of children and to compare the frequency of calyceal diverticula in our cohort with what has been previously reported.
methodsThis was a HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study of all patients with suspected CD based on their medical records. All patients in this study underwent MRU at our institution between 2010 and 2017. Two pediatric radiologists reviewed each MRU blinded to clinical information and other urologic imaging regarding the presence, size, location, and morphology of the cyst and presence/absence of contrast within it. The time when contrast first appeared within the cystic mass was recorded, and a χ
resultsFifty children (29 girls and 21 boys; median age of 11.5 years, IQR 7-16) with a total of 66 individual cystic masses were included. 21 (21/66, 31.8%) Cystic masses demonstrated contrast filling and were characterized as diverticula, resulting in a frequency of 26.6 cases per 1000 patients (21/787). The remaining 45 cystic masses (45/66, 68.1%) were cysts. The median diameter of CD was 2.5 cm (IQR 1.5-3.7). Contrast was observed within the cystic mass on average at 4.6 min (SD ± 2.4; range 1.5-13 min). The agreement between both radiologists was 91% (k = 0.78). 6 Cysts and 18 CD were confirmed surgically, MRU demonstrated accurate diagnosis in 100% of those cases.
conclusionMagnetic resonance urography is reliable in differentiating calyceal diverticula from renal cysts. On MRU, all diverticula were identified within 15 min of contrast administration; hence longer delays in imaging are unnecessary.
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.