ArticleCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2020
Feasibility Study of a Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Renal Denervation as a Possible Treatment Option in Patients With Loin Pain Hematuria Syndrome.
Article in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04332731 (Prairie Renal Denervation Study), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Prairie Renal Denervation Study: Renal Denervation (RDN) for Management of Patients With Loin Pain Hematuria Syndrome (LPHS)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLoin Pain Hematuria Syndrome (LPHS) is a poorly understood clinical condition characterized by severe pain localized to the kidney but in the absence of identifiable urinary tract disease. There is no consensus on optimal treatment strategies for LPHS. Case reports and series have shown renal denervation via catheter-based radiofrequency ablation to be an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of LPHS. To determine whether catheter-based renal denervation is a meaningful addition to the treatment options in these often-difficult-to-treat LPHS patients, a randomized clinical trial is needed. Prior to conducting a definitive trial that focuses on patient outcomes, ensuring the feasibility of undertaking such a trial is required. As such, we will conduct a single-center randomized control feasibility trial designed to determine viability and provide framework and direction for a larger trial.
objectiveThe objective of the study is to determine whether conducting a randomized trial of renal denervation versus sham procedure is feasible in terms of recruitment and eligibility, and adequacy of follow-up in LPHS patients.
designSingle-center double-blinded, parallel-group, partial crossover, sham-controlled, randomized feasibility trial of 10 LPHS patients.
settingRegina General Hospital in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. PATIENTS: Ten LPHS patients who require opioid therapy. MEASUREMENTS: The main feasibility outcome measures include proportion of target patients who undergo the procedure (treatment or sham) within 6 months; proportion of randomized participants (treatment or control) who entirely complete the follow-up measures at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months; proportion of the participants who were randomized to control group, cross over after 6 months and opt-in renal denervation treatment; proportion of the crossover participants who complete the follow-up measures at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months. Pain will be assessed using Brief Pain Inventory Score, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and a pain diary. Mood, disability, and quality of life will be measured by Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, and Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire, respectively.
methodsEligible participants will be randomized into either renal denervation (treatment group) or a sham treatment (control group). Data (pain, quality of life, mood, disability) will be collected from both groups at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months after the intervention. After the initial 6-month follow-up is over, the participants who received the sham procedure will cross over into the treatment group and will be followed for an additional 6 months in the same manner as the treatment group. Descriptive statistics will be used to report outcomes for all patients. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study, small sample size.
conclusionsThe lessons learnt from this trial will lay the framework and direction for conducting a multisite randomized controlled trial involving a larger cohort of patients.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04332731).
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.