ArticlePediatric surgery international2023
Does the distal ureteral diameter ratio (UDR) matter in the surgical management of vesicoureteral reflux in children?
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utility of ureteral diameter ratio for clinical decision-making in children with vesicoureteral reflux: a systematic review and meta analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Pooled it
- Web-based multi-variable computational models predicting early spontaneous resolution in children with vesicoureteral reflux.Journal of pediatric urology · 2026Article
- Development of a prediction model for risk of breakthrough urinary tract infection in children with primary vesicoureteral reflux.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Predictive factors for the success of subureteric injection in renal transplant patients with vesicoureteral reflux.BMC urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate UDR reliability, sensitivity, specificity and to identify the best treatment basing on UDR among single or double endoscopic injections and ureteral reimplantation.
methodsData of patients affected by primary VUR and treated by endoscopic injection over a 10 years period were retrospectively analyzed. Two radiologist attributed reflux grade and UDR on voiding cystourethrogram twice and blinded. Follow-up focused on resolution after 1 or 2 endoscopic injections. Relation between UDR, reflux grade and outcomes were analyzed.
resultsPatient enrolled were 198. Low grade VUR was present in 24.8%, grade 3 in 41.6%, grade 4-5 in 33.6%. Resolution after one injection was obtained in 88 patients; among 110 not resolved 104 cases had a second injection. Success after 2 injections was reported in 138 cases. UDR showed a higher reliability compared with reflux grade both in intra than inter-reader measurement (ICC > 90%). Success after 1 or 2 injections was reported for UDR < 0.33 and UDR < 0.47 respectively.
conclusionUDR shows to be a more reliable measurement that allows for an objective estimation of VUR severity and prognosis. It represents a quantitative parameter that might be useful to identify patients who may benefit endoscopic or surgical treatment, avoiding unnecessary under or over-treatment.
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.