ReviewCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2021
Evolving Medical Imaging Techniques for the Assessment of Delayed Graft Function: A Narrative Review.
Review in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vivo assessment of pediatric kidney function using multi-parametric and multi-nuclear functional magnetic resonance imaging: challenges, perspectives, and clinical applications.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Review
- The value of intrarenal resistive index in delayed graft function after kidney transplantation.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography-based renal blood perfusion in brain-dead donors predicts early graft function.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewDelayed graft function (DGF) is a significant complication that contributes to poorer graft function and shortened graft survival. In this review, we sought to evaluate the current and emerging role of medical imaging modalities in the assessment of DGF and how it may guide clinical management. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrial.gov up until February 2021.
methodsThis narrative review first examined the pathophysiology of DGF and current clinical management. We then summarized relevant studies that utilized medical imaging to assess posttransplant renal complications, namely, DGF. We focused our attention on noninvasive, evolving imaging modalities with the greatest potential for clinical translation, including contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). KEY
findingsA kidney biopsy in the setting of DGF can be used to assess the degree of ischemic renal injury and to rule out acute rejection. Biopsies are accompanied by complications and may be limited by sampling bias. Early studies on CEUS and MRI have shown their potential to distinguish between the 2 most common causes of DGF (acute tubular necrosis and acute rejection), but they have generally included only small numbers of patients and have not kept pace with more recent technical advances of these imaging modalities. There remains unharnessed potential with CEUS and MRI, and more robust clinical studies are needed to better evaluate their role in the current era. LIMITATIONS: The adaptation of emerging approaches for imaging DGF will depend on additional clinical trials to study the feasibility and diagnostic test characteristics of a given modality. This is limited by access to devices, technical competence, and the need for interdisciplinary collaborations to ensure that such studies are well designed to appropriately inform clinical decision-making.
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.