ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2024
Diagnostic role of contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS) in pediatric duplex kidneys - a comparison with voiding cystourethrography (VCUG).
Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The present study aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS) using SonoVue for evaluating duplex kidneys, and to compare it with fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography (VCUG). Material and methods: Forty-six children with duplex kidneys confirmed by surgical intervention or cystoscopy were included in the study, resulting in a total of 46 duplex kidneys and 46 normal kidneys (138 pyeloureteral units). Results: The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of RBUS for diagnosing duplex kidney disease were 73.91%, 80.43%, 79.07%, and 75.51%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of RBUS and ceVUS in detecting duplex kidney yielded an overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 89.13%, 84.78%, 85.42%, and 88.64%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of VCUG in diagnosing duplex kidney disease were 17.31%, 86.96%, 57.14%, and 51.23%, respectively. For the 42 pyeloureteral units with VUR, Cohen's weighted kappa value for the agreement between ceVUS and VCUG in grading VUR was 0.702 (95% CI, 0.551 ~ 0.854; Conclusions: RBUS effectively diagnoses duplex kidneys with renal pelvic dilation, while ceVUS can further elucidate whether reflux occurs in the upper or lower moiety in cases of duplex kidneys with VUR. Compared to VCUG, both RBUS and ceVUS provide more intuitive diagnoses for duplex kidneys with VUR and ureterocele. Additionally, there is good consistency between ceVUS and VCUG in grading VUR. CeVUS is recommended as an initial evaluation method for patients suspected of having duplex kidneys associated with urinary tract infections.
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.