Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33887876›Full record

ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2021

Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux and intrarenal reflux: a comparison of diagnostic performance with fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography.

Daehee Kim, Young Hun Choi, Gayoung Choi, Seulbi Lee, Seunghyun Lee, Yeon Jin Cho, Seon Hee Lim, Hee Gyung Kang, Jung-Eun Cheon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

9 authors.

Daehee KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Young Hun ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Gayoung ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Korea.
Seulbi LeeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Seunghyun LeeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Yeon Jin ChoDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Seon Hee LimDepartment of Pediatrics, Seoul National University Children's Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Hee Gyung KangDepartment of Pediatrics, Seoul National University Children's Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Jung-Eun CheonDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

Samsung Medison Co. Ltd.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study evaluated the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ce-VUS) using a second-generation ultrasound contrast agent for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) and intrarenal reflux (IRR), and compared it with that of standard fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography (VCUG).

methodsThirty-two consecutive children from April to October 2019 were included in this study. ce-VUS and VCUG were performed simultaneously by two operators with intravesical infusion of a mixture of ultrasound contrast medium, iodinated contrast medium and water. Two pediatric radiologists independently reviewed the ce-VUS and VCUG images and reported the presence and degree of VUR (grades I-V), and the presence and type of IRR.

resultsTwenty-seven of 63 urinary systems showed VUR. Interobserver agreement for VUR grading was very good for both examinations (κ=0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 0.92 for ce-VUS and κ=0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96 for VCUG). The detection rate of VUR showed no significant difference between the two examinations (P=0.370). Four cases of VUR were missed on ce-VUS, while one case of VUR was missed on VCUG. All four false-negative cases on ce-VUS were grade 1 VUR. The two examinations showed very good agreement regarding VUR grading (κ =0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96). IRR was more frequently detected with ce-VUS than with VCUG (10 cases with ce-VUS vs. 3 cases with VCUG, P=0.016).

conclusionce-VUS showed very good agreement with VCUG for detecting grade 2 VUR and above, while grade 1 VUR was sometimes missed with ce-VUS. IRR was more frequently detected with ce-VUS than with VCUG.

Indexed as

Contrast-enhanced ultrasonographyIntrarenal refluxUltrasonographyVesicoureteral refluxVoiding cystourethrography

Identifiers

PMID33887876
PMCPMC8446490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.