Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36548205›Full record

ArticlePediatric reports2022

Evaluation of Pediatric Patients with a Diagnosis of Ureterocele.

Özgür Özdemir Şimşek, Sibel Tiryaki, Gökçen Erfidan, Cemaliye Başaran, Seçil Arslansoyu Çamlar, Fatma Mutlubaş, Belde Kasap Demir, Demet Alaygut

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Özgür Özdemir ŞimşekDepartment of Pediatric Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir 35170, Turkey.
Sibel TiryakiDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir 35170, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0003-4087-1911
Gökçen ErfidanDepartment of Pediatric Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir 35170, Turkey.
Cemaliye BaşaranDivision of Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir 35170, Turkey.
Seçil Arslansoyu ÇamlarDepartment of Pediatric Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir 35170, Turkey.
Fatma MutlubaşDepartment of Pediatric Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir 35170, Turkey.
Belde Kasap DemirDepartment of Pediatric Nephrology and Rheumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Katip Çelebi University, Izmir 35170, Turkey.
Demet AlaygutDepartment of Pediatric Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Izmir 35170, Turkey.
Izmir University · TRIzmir Kâtip Çelebi University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The presence and clinical importance of vesicoureteric reflux in patients with a double collecting system are being questioned. Therefore, the role of voiding cystourethrography in the management of patients with ureterocele is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate patients with a ureterocele in terms of urinary tract infection (UTI) and vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). Material Methods: The cases who were admitted to the Pediatric Nephrology Clinic of Health Sciences University Tepecik Training and Research Hospital between 2012 and 2022 and were diagnosed with ureterocele were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were obtained from file records. Results: All patients diagnosed with ureterocele and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) were evaluated. A total of 24 (female 13 (54.2%)) children were included. The reasons for admission were antenatal hydronephrosis in 13 (54.2%) patients, UTI in 9 (37.5%) patients, and incidentally diagnosed ureterocele in 2 (8.3%) patients. Urinary tract infection was observed in 20 patients at admission, recurrent UTI in 21 patients at follow-up, preoperative pyelonephritis in 12 patients. VUR was found in 11 patients, and severe VUR (≥stage 3) was found in 9 patients. Ten patients had ipsilateral hydronephrosis, and 14 patients had a double collecting system. The presence of VUR was found to be associated with female gender, UTI at admission, and recurrent UTI at follow-up (p < 0.05). However, there was no difference between groups with or without VUR in terms of ipsilateral hydronephrosis, scar formation, and the need for surgery (p > 0.05). Conclusions: We could not demonstrate any criteria to select patients to receive VCUG; on the other hand, VUR did not cause more kidney damage. Our study supports the need for more scientific data to determine management in patients with ureterocele.

Indexed as

ureteroceleurinary tract infectionvesicoureteral refluxvoiding cystourethrogram

Identifiers

PMID36548205
PMCPMC9783867
OpenAlexW4311784662

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.