ArticlePediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2025
Development and international validation of a novel multivariate prognostic tool: posterior urethral valve risk of chronic kidney disease (PURK) score.
Article in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical characteristics and kidney outcomes in children with posterior urethral valve: a single-center experience.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Post fulguration renal & bladder status (RBS grading) in prognostication of posterior urethral valves.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Prognostic evaluation of boys with posterior urethral valves using a recursive feature elimination machine learning framework.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Impact of a standardized care pathway and a dedicated multidisciplinary posterior urethral valve clinic on 5-year kidney and bladder outcomes.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) affects up to 40% of children diagnosed with posterior urethral valves (PUV). This study aimed to develop and validate a risk stratification tool based on clinical variables available at presentation to predict CKD progression in children with PUV.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective cohort study included data from 283 children diagnosed with PUV before 12 months of age, treated at seven pediatric centers across four countries. Patients were followed for a minimum of one year to assess CKD progression. Using patients from the largest institutional cohort, clinical variables at initial presentation, including baseline creatinine, high-grade vesicoureteral reflux (VUR), failure to thrive (FTT), and kidney dysplasia, were identified through backward logistic regression analysis and used to develop the Posterior Urethral Valve Risk of Kidney disease (PURK) score, which was then externally validated at six centers.
resultsThe PURK score identified baseline creatinine > 150 µmol/L, high-grade VUR, FTT, and kidney dysplasia as significant predictors of CKD stage ≥ 3. In the development cohort, the score achieved excellent predictive accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.907 at 1 year and 0.873 at 5 years. External validation across six additional institutions confirmed high predictive value, with AUROCs of 0.849 and 0.877 at 1 and 5 years, respectively.
conclusionsThe PURK score is a reliable tool for predicting CKD progression in children with PUV, using accessible clinical data. Its implementation may support individualized care, improve family counseling, and allow comparison of similar risk-group patients for both clinicians and researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39932574What 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.