ReviewAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2022
Systematic review of intra-operative duplex scanning during renal transplantation.
Review in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Current evidence on intraoperative ultrasound : A position paper of the German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM)].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Intra-operative duplex ultrasound scanning in renal transplantation: protocol and service requirements.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA systematic review of the value of intra-operative duplex scanning during renal transplantation was undertaken.
methodsStudies assessing intra-operative renal cortical flow in the arcuate vessels with outcomes of ultrasound directed interventions during the initial procedure, delayed graft function, post-operative resistive indices, graft losses and early returns to theatre for graft hypoperfusion were reviewed. PROSPERO registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020203873).
resultsLiterature searching identified 2069 articles for screening, with 131 reviewed and 12 selected for analysis comprising 5 individual case reports, one case series of 11 patients and 6 non-randomised controlled trials. Studies with similar methodologies were pooled because of the low number of studies and outcomes. Outcomes of interest were not reported for all patients. Intra-operative interventions comprising graft repositioning in 18 (16%) and vascular revision in 2 (2%) were performed in 115 patients undergoing intra-operative scans. There were no graft losses or returns to theatre for graft hypoperfusion (0 of 108 cases) compared to 7 of 71 (10%) without intraoperative scanning (P = 0.003). Three of 8 (38%) patients with high intra-operative resistive indices (RIs) were returned to theatre for hypoperfusion compared to 1 of 110 (1%) patients with normal resistive indices (P = <0.001). Ten of 13 (77%) patients with high RIs had delayed graft function compared to 10 of 40 (25%) with normal RIs (P = 0.001).
conclusionDespite the absence of randomised controlled trials, and heterogeneous small studies, adverse outcomes were reduced with intra-operative scanning. High intraoperative RIs were predictive of both delayed graft function and return to theatre for hypoperfusion.
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.